The GigReporter

The United States Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, No. 23-367 (June 13, 2024). While the specific holding is only narrowly applicable, it is perhaps instructive on broader patterns within the Court towards agency deference.

The case concerns the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), which created the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) and empowered it to investigate and enforce complaints of unfair labor practices. Specifically, Section 10(j) of the NLRA allows the NLRB to petition federal courts of preliminary injunctions while its agency proceedings are ongoing. There is a generally applicable four-part standard for preliminary injunctions requiring (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) likelihood of irreparable harm without the injunction, (3) the balance of equities favor the injunction, and (4) the injunction would be in the public interest. Most federal courts use this standard for Section 10(j) injunction petitions, but some, including the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case, used a much easier two-part standard requiring (1) reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices have occurred, and (2) whether an injunction is just and proper; the first element could be satisfied merely by advancing a non-frivolous legal theory.

On appeal from the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court determined the standard four-part should be used for Section 10(j) injunction petitions, reasoning that the statutory language contains no express limitation on the elements governing injunctions as can be found in other federal statutes. The Court also determined that a district court’s merits inquiry should not be particularly deferential to the NLRB’s position.

The holding of this case is of narrow relevance; Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion notes the NLRB sought Section 10(j) injunctions only 14 times in 2023. However, it may be more important for how it demonstrates the high court’s attitude towards agency deference broadly.  There has been much speculation that the Court wants to revisit the doctrine of so-called “Chevron deference”, which grants federal agencies deference in interpreting the statutes they’re responsible for enforcing. Starbucks Corp. could be a sign that the Supreme Court, or at least some of its members, really are considering such a change.