Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney
| Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney | |
|---|---|
| Argued April 23, 2024 Decided June 13, 2024 | |
| Full case name | Starbucks Corporation v. M. Kathleen McKinney, Regional Director of Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board |
| Docket no. | 23-367 |
| Citations | 602 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | McKinney v. Starbucks Corp., 77 F.4th 391 (6th Cir. 2023) |
| Questions presented | |
| Whether courts must evaluate the NLRB's requests for section 10(j) injunctions under the traditional, stringent four-factor test for preliminary injunctions or under some other more lenient standard. | |
| Holding | |
| The National Labor Relations Board, in pursuing injunctive relief, must meet the traditional four-factor test of Winter. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
| Concur/dissent | Jackson |
| Laws applied | |
| Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 () | |
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), was a U.S. Supreme Court case about what standard a court must apply before granting a preliminary injunction requested by the National Labor Relations Board. The Court held in an 8–1 decision that the ordinary four-factor Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council test applies.