Jackson dissents in Starbucks case: NLRB pro-labor injunction reversed: by Scotus

From the moment in 1895 that American Railway Union leader Eugene Debs was ordered to stop a lawful boycott of Pullman sleeping cars,  deployment of court injunctions to break strikes has been a point of struggle.

In 1932 the Norris LaGuardia Act stripped federal courts of the power to break strikes.  But a few years later the National Labor Relations Act empowered courts to enforce the act's protections, and limits.

The United States Supreme Court has now backed Starbucks in its anti-union fight against several fired  workers who had the temerity to call a TV station to publicize their drive to organize. 

The Supreme Court makes it harder for the NLRB to get an injunctions against such an unfair labor practice.  The majority writes

The default rule is that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must make a clear showing that “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

This has a familiar feel but until now  "The default rule is that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must make a clear showing that “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” 

So this is a relatively low impact decision by a court which - had it been asked - would surely have upheld the effort to break the Debs-led railroad workers boycott of Pullman-owned sleeper cars.

Nevertheless recently appointed Associate Justice  Jackson's dissent is heartening.   The Court in Starbucks increased the burden on the NLRB to obtain relief.  Since Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321, 328-331 (1944) that has been quite easy once the bi-partisan board  acts.  In language that sounds quaint today, the language of the Court eighty years ago is that of a court that saw itself as a partner of Congress. Reviewing actions under the Emergency Price Control Act, the Court explained "courts should see themselves as partners of the agency that administered the Act. Congress “entrusted” each “with a share of . . . responsibility” for effectuating its goals."

Such partnership today can be found only in the rear-view mirror as the Supreme Court and its acolytes are wielding their own equitable discretionary powers in a way that is plainly calculated to advance the contemporary goals of conservatives' anti-regulatory agenda. - GWC

- GWC

23-367 Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (06/13/2024)

Dissent by Jackson, J.                June 13, 2024

“When   Congress entrusts to an equity court the enforcement of prohibitions contained in a regulatory enactment, it must be taken to have acted cognizant of the historic power of equity to provide complete relief in light of the statutory purposes.” Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U. S. 288, 291-292, 80 S. Ct. 332, 4 L. Ed. 2d 323 (1960). 

Accordingly, when interpreting a statute that authorizes equitable relief, like a preliminary injunction, this Court typically employs what amounts to a two-part inquiry focused on congressional intent. See Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321, 328-331, 64 S. Ct. 587, 88 L. Ed. 754 (1944). 

First, we determine whether Congress has stripped courts of their traditional equitable discretion by “a clear and valid legislative command.” Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U. S. 395, 398, 66 S. Ct. 1086, 90 L. Ed. 1332 (1946). Second, if no such clear command is found, we look to the statutory context to assess how courts should exercise their equitable discretion “‘as conditioned by the necessities of the public interest which Congress has sought to protect.’” Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 320, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982) (quoting Hecht, 321 U. S., at 330, 64 S. Ct. 587, 88 L. Ed. 754).

Today, the Court correctly applies the first step, but ignores the second. I agree with the majority that nothing in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) clearly strips courts of their equitable discretion to determine whether to issue a so-called §10(j) injunction. 

And I concur in the conclusion that we should vacate and remand [*20]  for the Sixth Circuit to reevaluate this case under our traditional four-factor test for assessing requests for preliminary injunctions. 

But I cannot join the majority in ignoring the choices Congress has made in the NLRA about how courts should exercise their discretion in light of the National Labor Relations Board’s authority over labor disputes. Because the majority chooses the simplicity of unfettered judicial discretion over the nuances of Congress’s direction, I respectfully dissent in part.

I

The question in this case is how district courts should evaluate the Board’s request for a preliminary injunction in light of Congress’s intentions. See 29 U. S. C. §160(j) (authorizing a district court to issue “such temporary relief or restraining order as it deems just and proper”). The majority suggests a sharp dichotomy: Either courts retain all of their equitable discretion, or the Board gets undue deference. See ante, at 8-10. But, “[w]hen Congress invokes the Chancellor’s conscience to further transcendent legislative purposes, what is required is the principled application of standards consistent with those purposes,” not unbridled equitable discretion, “‘which varies like the Chancellor’s foot.’” [*21]  Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 417, 95 S. Ct. 2362, 45 L. Ed. 2d 280 (1975) (alteration omitted).

Our Hecht case is instructive, for it establishes the framework we have long used to assess whether an injunction authorized by a statute should issue. 1 In Hecht, the Court was asked to determine whether the Emergency Price Control Act’s direction that an injunction “‘shall be granted’” after a violation was found displaced a court’s equitable discretion. 321 U. S., at 322, 64 S. Ct. 587, 88 L. Ed. 754. As the majority acknowledges, after finding no clear indication that Congress intended to displace equitable discretion, the Hecht Court concluded that the answer was no. See ante, at 7. 2

But Hecht did not end there. The Court emphasized that the mere fact that the Emergency Price Control Act lacked an “unequivocal statement” displacing courts’ equitable discretion did not “imply that courts should administer [the Act] grudgingly.” 321 U. S., at 329-330, 64 S. Ct. 587, 88 L. Ed. 754. 

Instead, the Court explained, courts should see themselves as partners of the agency that administered the Act. Congress “entrusted” each “with a share of . . . responsibility” for effectuating its goals. Id., at 331, 64 S. Ct. 587, 88 L. Ed. 754. In other words, “[c]ourt and agency are the means adopted to attain the prescribed end, and so far as their duties are defined by the words of the statute, [*22]  those words should be construed so as to attain that end through coordinated action.” Id., at 330, 64 S. Ct. 587, 88 L. Ed. 754. Therefore, a court’s “discretion . . . must be exercised in light of the large objectives of the Act.” Id., at 331, 64 S. Ct. 587, 88 L. Ed. 754.

Hecht’s two-step framework is still in use today. We only rarely find that a statute clearly displaces courts’ equitable discretion. See, e.g., TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 193-195, 98 S. Ct. 2279, 57 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1978) (finding such displacement in the Endangered Species Act). So, in most cases in which equitable relief is authorized by statute, the movant must contend with the court’s equitable authority. In statutes that involve preliminary injunctive relief, that means the party seeking relief “must establish 

[1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, 

[2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and 

[4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008).

Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, No. 23-367, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2603, at *18-22 (June 13, 2024)