Federal judges must review National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) requests for immediate court orders using the same standards applied to any other preliminary injunction petitions, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, dismissed the NLRB’s argument that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) mandates a more lenient standard for the agency’s petitions compared to those in private litigation.

This ruling will slow down the process for the NLRB to obtain immediate court orders, weakening one of its key tools for protecting workers’ rights under the NLRA.

The NLRB utilizes 10(j) injunctions—named after the NLRA section authorizing them—to swiftly address workplace impacts from alleged labor law violations and to prevent harm that could be irreversible by the time the board’s eventual remedy is issued. These injunctions are sought while underlying administrative cases are pending and dissolve once the board rules.

The case originated from Starbucks’ (NASDAQ:SBUX) challenge to a Sixth Circuit decision upholding a federal judge’s temporary order to reinstate a group of pro-union workers known as the “Memphis Seven.” The Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, sending the case back for the district court to reassess the NLRB’s injunction request under the newly established, more rigorous standard.

Starbucks, currently in negotiations with the Starbucks Workers United union to reach collective bargaining agreements, emphasized the importance of consistent federal standards for employee rights and labor practices. “Consistent federal standards are important in ensuring that employees know their rights and consistent labor practices are upheld no matter where in the country they work and live,” the company said.

The union criticized Starbucks for not dropping the Supreme Court case, despite the company’s commitment to improving relations with its workers. “It’s incongruous to want to build a productive, positive relationship with workers and at the same time lead an attack on one of the few mechanisms they have to defend themselves against unscrupulous employers,” said Lynne Fox, president of Starbucks Workers United.

NLRB spokesperson Kayla Blado declined to comment on the ruling.

Thursday’s decision resolved a split among circuit courts on the legal test for 10(j) injunction requests. The justices determined that courts should use the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions from the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council. This test considers the likelihood of success on the merits, the chance of irreparable harm without the injunction, the balance of the parties’ interests, and whether the injunction serves the public interest.

Previously, some circuit courts used a two-part standard based on whether the NLRB could show “reasonable cause” for an unfair labor practice and if injunctive relief was “just and proper.”

“Nothing in §10(j)’s text overcomes the presumption that the four traditional criteria govern a preliminary-injunction request by the Board,” wrote Thomas.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in the judgment but dissented in part. She argued that the majority’s decision grants judges too much discretion on 10(j) requests, undermining the NLRB’s authority and the legal framework designed to allow the agency to seek immediate, interim relief. “I am loath to bless this aggrandizement of judicial power where Congress has so plainly limited the discretion of the courts, and where it so clearly intends for the expert agency it has created to make the primary determinations about both merits and process,” Jackson wrote.

Featured Image: Pexels

Please See Disclaimer