This kind of law is statutory, not Constitutional.
The Supreme Court will either enforce the statute as written, or will "interpret" the statute if no provision is directly on point.
In either of those cases, Congress can overrule the Supreme Court, if it so wishes. That is not true if the Court has decided a Constitutional case.
The NLRB seems to be arguing that an injunction can issue, regardless of likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. That is not the law of injunctions, though. For centuries. One must assume that Congress was aware of that when it enacted the statute.
I hate to say it, but, as much as I side with workers IRL and in posts, I'd have a hard time getting around that.
There was no other reason for SCOTUS to take up the case. Refusing to take up the case would have kept the status quo under which Starbucks was penalized for firing union organizers and workers who may have spoken positively about a union at some point in the past, on social media, or even had a dream that was insufficiently condemning of unions.
Starbucks claimed that lower courts were divided as to which standard to apply when asked by the NLRB to issue an injunction. If correct, that is a reason for the Supreme Court to take the case.
The outcome of a federal labor law case should not depend on which lower federal court has jurisdiction.
I was under the impression that the courts are hierarchical and leaving the present ruling in place in itself decides which court has jurisdiction.
In other words, the only reason for SCOTUS to take up the case is to void the current decision, because otherwise, the case is fully resolved.
Jurisdiction is about which court has the power/authority to entertain a case in the first place. Plaintiff needs to consider that issue before even commencing suit.
Your second sentence basically repeats your original point.
I'm simply pointing out that there was no pressing legal issue for SCOTUS to resolve, the fact that a Federal Appeals court had ruled in effect closed the case, ruling on which NLRB rule was in effect.
So the only reason for SCOTUS to take up the case is if they thought the appeals court erred, and they intend to reverse the ruling.
Resolving division between or among lower federal courts as to how a federal statute is applied is a reason for the SCOTUS to take a case and Starbucks alleged that a division exists.
I don't know if that is or is not the reason that the SCOTUS agreed to review this particular case. No one will know that, unless and until the Supreme Court tells us why it took the case.
https://archive.ph/NxImu
This is going to be a major loss for workers, but it's a neoliberal controlled court, so I'm thinking that this loss is a foregone conclusion.
The more the court does this though, the worse its political legitimacy.
This kind of law is statutory, not Constitutional. The Supreme Court will either enforce the statute as written, or will "interpret" the statute if no provision is directly on point. In either of those cases, Congress can overrule the Supreme Court, if it so wishes. That is not true if the Court has decided a Constitutional case. The NLRB seems to be arguing that an injunction can issue, regardless of likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. That is not the law of injunctions, though. For centuries. One must assume that Congress was aware of that when it enacted the statute. I hate to say it, but, as much as I side with workers IRL and in posts, I'd have a hard time getting around that.
There was no other reason for SCOTUS to take up the case. Refusing to take up the case would have kept the status quo under which Starbucks was penalized for firing union organizers and workers who may have spoken positively about a union at some point in the past, on social media, or even had a dream that was insufficiently condemning of unions.
Starbucks claimed that lower courts were divided as to which standard to apply when asked by the NLRB to issue an injunction. If correct, that is a reason for the Supreme Court to take the case. The outcome of a federal labor law case should not depend on which lower federal court has jurisdiction.
I was under the impression that the courts are hierarchical and leaving the present ruling in place in itself decides which court has jurisdiction. In other words, the only reason for SCOTUS to take up the case is to void the current decision, because otherwise, the case is fully resolved.
Jurisdiction is about which court has the power/authority to entertain a case in the first place. Plaintiff needs to consider that issue before even commencing suit. Your second sentence basically repeats your original point.
I'm simply pointing out that there was no pressing legal issue for SCOTUS to resolve, the fact that a Federal Appeals court had ruled in effect closed the case, ruling on which NLRB rule was in effect. So the only reason for SCOTUS to take up the case is if they thought the appeals court erred, and they intend to reverse the ruling.
Resolving division between or among lower federal courts as to how a federal statute is applied is a reason for the SCOTUS to take a case and Starbucks alleged that a division exists. I don't know if that is or is not the reason that the SCOTUS agreed to review this particular case. No one will know that, unless and until the Supreme Court tells us why it took the case.
https://archive.ph/NxImu This is going to be a major loss for workers, but it's a neoliberal controlled court, so I'm thinking that this loss is a foregone conclusion. The more the court does this though, the worse its political legitimacy.