SCOTUS Orders NLRB to Follow Same Injunction Standards as Other Litigants

At a Glance

• On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the four-part test articulated in Winters applied to NLRB’s requests for injunctions.
• This decision has largely been cast as a blow for labor or as a handicap to the NLRB’s authority. However, as other courts have already recognized, there is no language in the Act which grants the NLRB special access to the powerful tool of preliminary injunctions. SCOTUS’s decision last week merely standardizes that recognition across the federal circuits.

In Starbucks v. McKinney, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must meet the same standard as other ordinary litigants in order to obtain an injunction from the federal district courts. This decision has largely been billed as a win for Starbucks; but in reality, the decision has simply clarified that the NLRB enjoys no special status when it comes to injunctions, something some federal circuits have already recognized.

The case is the result of an organizing drive at a Starbucks in Memphis, Tennessee. There, several employees allowed a TV crew to enter the store after hours to do interviews with staff involved in the organizing campaign. When Starbucks learned about the incident, it fired these employees for violating store policy. The employees in turn filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB alleging Starbucks interfered with their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).

The NLRB filed a complaint with the district court, which sought an injunction preventing the employees’ terminations. The district court granted the injunction and applied a two-part test that required the NLRB to show that there was (1) reasonable cause to believe that the charged party committed an unfair labor practice, and (2) that injunctive relief was just and proper. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the ruling on appeal.

While the Sixth Circuit applies the above lax standard, other federal courts apply the traditional test for preliminary injunctions as articulated in Winters v. NRDC. This test requires parties seeking injunctions to show that they will likely prevail on the merits and that irreparable harm is likely absent an injunction. SCOTUS granted certiorari to Starbucks, presumably to resolve this circuit split.

Then on June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the four-part test articulated in Winters applied to NLRB’s requests for injunctions. The Court held that the language in the Act permitted the district courts to grant the NLRB an injunction “as it deems just and proper” but does not override the strong presumption that courts will apply the traditional principle of equitable relief when evaluating such requests. The only disagreement on this point was the lone concurrence — filed by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — which argued that the “likelihood of success” factor in the traditional test should be modified based on the Act’s language authorizing the NLRB to seek injunctions.

Conclusion

This decision has largely been cast as a blow for labor or as a handicap to the NLRB’s authority. However, as other courts have already recognized, there is no language in the Act which grants the NLRB special access to the powerful tool of preliminary injunctions. SCOTUS’s decision last week merely standardizes that recognition across the federal circuits.