The Supreme Court just quashed a bid for pro-union favoritism in Starbucks v. McKinney. Writing for his colleagues, Justice Clarence Thomas held that, to win injunctions against employers allegedly engaged in unfair labor practices, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must meet the same legal standards as anybody else.
Thomas’ opinion reverses a ruling from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that required the agency merely to demonstrate “reasonable cause” and that injunctive relief is “just and proper.” Under this standard, Thomas wrote, “The Board ‘need not convince the court of the validity of [its] theory of liability, as long as the theory is substantial and not frivolous.’”
Ordinarily, however, a plaintiff seeking an injunction must demonstrate (among other things) a likelihood of success on the merits of their case — a significantly more rigorous test than the 6th Circuit’s. “A preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary’ equitable remedy that is ‘never awarded as of right,’” Thomas noted. The court’s ruling clarifies that the NLRB has no special exemption or legal fast lane through which it can impose its will on employers. “The reasonable-cause standard goes far beyond simply fine-tuning the traditional criteria to the [statutory] context,” he argued, “it substantively lowers the bar for securing a preliminary injunction by requiring courts to yield to the Board’s preliminary view of the facts, law, and equities.”
Faithful judicial interpretations do not always produce desirable public policy outcomes. But in this case, Thomas’ sound legal reasoning did just that, removing judicially manufactured
