Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney
602 U.S. 339 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeks a preliminary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, district courts must apply the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions established in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Facts:
- In 2022, employees at a Starbucks location in Memphis, Tennessee, announced plans to unionize the store and formed an organizing committee.
- Several employees, including some members of the organizing committee, invited a local television news crew to the store after hours to promote their unionizing efforts and were interviewed.
- The next day, Starbucks management learned about the media event and launched an investigation.
- Starbucks subsequently fired multiple employees involved with the media event, including members of the organizing committee, for allegedly violating company policy.
- The union coordinating with the employees filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that Starbucks unlawfully interfered with the employees' right to unionize and discriminated against union supporters.
- After investigating the allegations, the Board issued an administrative complaint against Starbucks.
Procedural Posture:
- The National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) Regional Director filed a petition under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, seeking a preliminary injunction against Starbucks, including the reinstatement of fired employees.
- The District Court applied a two-part test (reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices occurred and relief is just and proper) based on Sixth Circuit precedent and granted the injunction.
- Starbucks appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of the injunction, applying its existing circuit precedent.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split regarding the standard governing the Board's requests for preliminary injunctions under Section 10(j).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the traditional four-factor test for a preliminary injunction articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. govern the National Labor Relations Board's requests for preliminary injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Thomas, J.
Yes, the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. governs the Board's requests under Section 10(j). When Congress empowers courts to grant equitable relief, there is a strong presumption that courts will exercise that authority in a manner consistent with traditional principles of equity, which the Winter factors encompass. Nothing in Section 10(j)'s text, which authorizes temporary relief as the court "deems just and proper," displaces this presumption. The phrase "just and proper" invokes traditional judicial discretion, not an alteration of established equitable rules, unlike other statutes where Congress has explicitly modified injunction standards. The "reasonable-cause" standard previously applied by the Sixth Circuit and others substantially lowers the bar for securing a preliminary injunction by requiring only a showing that a legal theory is "substantial and not frivolous," without resolving conflicting evidence. This is far less exacting than demonstrating a "likelihood of success on the merits." The Board's arguments that its primary adjudicatory authority and deferential appellate review warrant a less stringent standard are unpersuasive. A district court's merits inquiry in a Section 10(j) proceeding does not supplant the Board's authority to reach its own legal conclusions in administrative proceedings, and the preliminary views of Board attorneys do not warrant deference.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Jackson, J.
Yes, the case should be vacated and remanded for reevaluation under the traditional four-factor Winter test, but the majority erred by ignoring how statutory context should inform the application of that test. While agreeing that Section 10(j) does not explicitly strip courts of their equitable discretion, the exercise of such discretion must be informed by congressional intent and the statutory scheme, as established by Hecht Co. v. Bowles. Congress deliberately sought to contain unbounded judicial discretion in labor disputes, largely entrusting the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as the primary adjudicator of labor policy. Section 10(j) was specifically designed to preserve the status quo during lengthy Board proceedings to prevent the defeat of labor rights due to delay. Given the NLRB's primary adjudicatory role, the deferential standard of review for its final decisions, and the Board's own rigorous internal screening process for authorizing Section 10(j) petitions (which are rarely filed), a district court's "likelihood of success on the merits" inquiry should be "far less searching than normal." The court's task is to predict the Board's future decision, not to offer its own take on the merits. Therefore, so long as the Board presents "some evidence to support the unfair labor practice charge, together with an arguable legal theory," the likelihood of success factor should be satisfied. The majority's decision risks forcing courts and the Board to disregard Congress's direction and improperly "aggrandizes judicial power."
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacts the National Labor Relations Board's ability to obtain swift injunctive relief against alleged unfair labor practices. By mandating the rigorous Winter four-factor test, it raises the bar for the NLRB, potentially leading to increased delays in addressing labor disputes and impacting the efficacy of union organizing efforts. The ruling reinforces the Supreme Court's commitment to requiring explicit congressional commands to displace traditional equitable principles, signaling a preference for judicial restraint in altering established legal standards. This case may invite more litigation over the application of the Winter factors in the labor context and could prompt Congress to consider legislative clarification if it believes the traditional test undermines the NLRA's goals.
