Columbus, OH – On Wednesday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Starbucks v. McKinney, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to abide by centuries of jurisprudence and consider the harm to both the employer and employee when deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction. 

“When the National Labor Relations Board sues a private company, the government should not get special treatment on its request for a preliminary injunction,” said David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute. “When it granted the government’s request for a preliminary injunction, the Sixth Circuit got it wrong. The proper standard—according to centuries of court practice—is to employ equity and consider the harms to both the company and its employees.”

In its brief, The Buckeye Institute argues that to prevent irreparable harm, the proper standard for determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction in Starbucks v. McKinney is to employ equity using the four-factor test—the likelihood of success on the merits, the likelihood of irreparable harm without preliminary relief, balance of equities, and public interest—to weigh the competing claims.

# # #

UPDATE: on June 13, 2024, in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks, with Justice Thomas writing, “When considering the NLRB’s request for a preliminary injunction under §10( j), district courts must apply the traditional four factors articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.”