Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney

Supreme Court of the United States · 2024 · Labor Law
602 U.S. 339 (2024)
Updated
Labor Law10(j) injunction standardNLRASection 10(j)preliminary injunctionWinterequityjust and proper

Facts

After employees at a Starbucks store in Memphis announced plans to unionize, several employees invited a local television news crew into the store after hours to promote their organizing effort. Starbucks investigated and fired multiple employees involved in the media event, including organizing committee members, for violating company policy. The union filed unfair labor practice charges alleging unlawful interference with employees' right to unionize and discrimination against union supporters. After the Board issued an administrative complaint, the regional Director sought a § 10(j) injunction requiring, among other things, reinstatement of the fired employees.

Issue

When the NLRB seeks a preliminary injunction under § 10(j) of the NLRA while administrative proceedings are pending, must district courts apply the traditional four-factor preliminary injunction test from Winter, or may they apply a more deferential reasonable-cause standard?

Rule

When a statute authorizes courts to grant equitable relief, courts presumptively apply traditional principles of equity unless Congress clearly commands otherwise. For § 10(j) petitions, district courts must apply the traditional Winter four-factor test: the movant must clearly show likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of irreparable harm absent relief, that the balance of equities favors relief, and that an injunction is in the public interest.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Phoenix, the regional director of the labor board files a Section 10(j) petition seeking reinstatement of warehouse employees while an unfair-labor-practice case proceeds administratively. The director argues only that the agency's theory is substantial and nonfrivolous, and the employer offers affidavits sharply disputing the alleged misconduct.

What is the most appropriate standard for the district court to apply to the request for preliminary relief?

Explanation. A district court considering a Section 10(j) petition must apply the traditional Winter four-factor test. The majority rejected the reasonable-cause approach because it lowers the Board's burden and substitutes deference to preliminary agency views for ordinary equitable analysis. The court must require a clear showing on all four factors, not merely a nonfrivolous theory.