Supreme Court Rules In Starbucks' Favor In Labor Case

The Supreme Court sided with Starbucks on Thursday in a decision that could make it harder for labor prosecutors to win court injunctions against employers they believe to have broken the law.

The case, McKinney v. Starbucks, revolved around the firings of seven baristas amid a union organizing campaign at a store in Memphis, Tennessee. The National Labor Relations Board secured an injunction in federal court requiring Starbucks to temporarily hire the baristas back while the underlying union-busting allegations were being litigated.

Starbucks had maintained that the firings were justified, and argued before the Supreme Court that the criteria the federal court used to evaluate the injunction request were too lax. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the 8-1 decision for the court. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a partial dissent.

The case is unlikely to have a dramatic impact on labor law because of its relatively limited scope. But the decision fits into a broader pattern, as the court’s right wing has sided with corporations and sought to limit the power of federal agencies to intervene on behalf of consumers, workers or the environment.

Lynne Fox, the president of Workers United, the union organizing Starbucks, said in a statement on the decision that workers have “so few tools” to defend themselves when employers break the law.

“That makes today’s ruling by the Supreme Court particularly egregious,” Fox said. “It underscores how the economy is rigged against working people all the way up to the Supreme Court.”

The NLRB is an independent federal agency responsible for enforcing collective bargaining rights in the private sector. Its prosecutors bring cases against employers and unions when workers’ rights have been