This case was about what the National Labor Relations Board must show to get a preliminary injunction against an employer while it conducts administrative proceedings to determine if the employer committed an unfair labor practice. Under the National Labor Relations Act and related precedents, the Board has had to show that its legal theory is “not frivolous” and had “some evidence to support it” to secure an injunction, but Starbucks asked the Supreme Court to require that the NLRB meet a stricter standard for injunctions drawn from precedents outside of labor law. Starbucks argued that the Board should be required to show likelihood of success on the merits, that failure to enjoin would cause irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships tips in its favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.

On June 13, 2024, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the NLRB has to meet the stricter standard that Starbucks argued for in order to secure a preliminary injunction — a blow to workers’ right to organize and to the NLRB’s ability to hold union-busting employers accountable. Justice Jackson dissented in part.

Powerbroker-Affiliated Organizations