US Supreme Court backs Starbucks over fired pro-union workers
reuters.com
reuters.com
If you're curious, who.
Interesting context.
move the whole things for a "wtf is the US doing now" into a "okey sucks but makes sense" territory
With the SCOTUS ruling, the decision on that injunction will just occur again, but with a different legal test. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) could still get the same injunction for the workers under the new test, though it is apparently more difficult.
The overall case against Starbucks could still be won or lost, and the legal tests for that haven’t changed.
The decision was essentially 9-0 with Justice Jackson dissenting in part but concurring in judgement.
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
The bigger issue with the FDA will be if a drug/food company sues them over a mandated safety procedure/requirement.
Not because I think it's the wrong decision. I thought it was incredibly obvious. So obvious that nobody could possibly have passed such a law unless they expected a partisan court to concoct a reason to back it.
At best I expected a 5-4 decision in favor of the right choice. Having all 9 justices make a decision that runs contrary to the ideology of a majority of them should make me question my belief that they will always choose ideology first and find a justification afterwards.
And yet... "lack of standing" is frequently used when they know they'll look bad, so they pretend the question doesn't actually exist.
This is an effect of media quite literally lying about the nature of the SCOTUS. The vast majority of cases they rule on are settled on apolitical lines. There has been a concerted effort in the past ~5 years to undermine the legitimacy of the court by trying to portray it as some hackneyed partisan legislature. Do some things get decided on political lines? Absolutely, but not any more than the SCOTUS has always handled these things.
Populists, both left and right, benefit from eroding the perceived legitimacy of independent institutions.
The cases that receive the most reporting are the ones that most affect people's lives. That's not bias on the part of the press. Nobody cares whether "the 60-day filing deadline in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) is not jurisdictional." (Harrow vs DoD). The press is accurately reflecting the cases that matter.
Some (e.g. the Strict Scrutiny podcast) have speculated that some cases are meant to make the SC look moderate, by giving them softballs to rule unanimously against the underlying ideological position they would normally uphold.
But they judges still pride themself about their position including their integrity. So especially for thing which are not very important fundamentals for their world personal political ideology they have been pushing a relative consistent approach where you can normally argue that it's a reasonable ruling if looking at it from a out of context perspective.
Like out of context the repelling of the previous supreme court decision wrt. abortion makes sense (laws should be made by the legislative organ not the jurisdicative organ and that ruling required a law to be made, which didn't happen). Through in context things are very different....
Also to be clear this applies to many but not all of their recent decisions.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like this is just about a temporary injunction to give the employees their jobs back while the actual labor case gets decided? The lower court used the two part McKinney test to grant the injunction, and the Supreme Court said no, you have to use the four part Winter test like other district courts, go back and decide again.
Article 3 section II
> In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Congress made an exception with the creation of the NLRB which means the supreme court should not have heard this case.
This is the supreme court claiming power to itself that it has no right to by the constitution.
The supreme court, according to the article I just cited, is the final arbiter by default, but not by right. Congress can strip that right from them. This is why, for example, the supreme court does not hear military tribunal cases.
So it’s kind of a moot point. Yes, officially they shouldn’t, in practice they do, and the law is what is practiced (otherwise adultery is still illegal in Minnesota).
Not really. Congress can, for example, impeach 1 or all of the supreme court justices. The supreme court cannot stop themselves from being removed from the court. They can claim authority and that they have the right to do that, but they are not above congress, they are coequal.
> Yes, officially they shouldn’t, in practice they do, and the law is what is practiced (otherwise adultery is still illegal in Minnesota).
Agreed, ultimately the ball is in congress's court (which they will most certainly drop). Congress could decide that this is the supreme court taking too much power and remove them all, but they aren't going to do that because this is likely a decision most representatives are perfectly fine with. So nothing will likely happen here. I'm just saying that this decision is one that the court never should have heard, not that practically they have heard it, and their enforcement is likely to stand.
I’m saying you’re presenting an amateur-hour legal theory on why our highest court shouldn’t have taken the case, because Congress said they couldn’t. Even though there are constitutional restrictions to when Congress can make such exemptions, and the SCOTUS can rule on them as they please (in practice).
Your argument to the contrary is about as interesting as Soverign Citizen understandings of law. I suppose we’re still ruled by George III and have been in a 248-year state of rebellion.
(Actual exceptions like this would violate separation-of-powers principles and typically get struck down.)
But I don’t think your reading is quite right. If congress could simply declare exemptions to Supreme Court appellate review, the court would have no power at all.
This is an activist action by the entire court.
(1)And even that is subject to law, free association with terrorists isn’t a good idea.
Let’s also not forget this is a 9-0. If you are accusing all of our judges as being activists, across all political lines, I know who the real activist is.
Look, if you’re going to allege corruption and votes for sale here, I think it’s a little more potent when you suggest he’s gotten better compensation than some “free coffee”
They're nothing more than unelected politicians working for moneyed interests.
If an employee is disruptive, hostile, negative and harmful to the environment for any other reason, of course they'd be fired, but if they're agitating for a union then it all becomes protected activity.
If an employee was working against the financial interests of the company in favor of the interests of a competitor, a supplier or a favored customer of course they'd be fired, but if it's a union then it becomes protected activity.
To be clear, I'm not making any judgement on unions or at-will employment or anything as being good or bad, or appropriate/inappropriate in any given situation, industry, etc. I just think it's super weird that from the perspective of the employer, you have an obviously cancerous group inside your organization which is actively working to harm you, but you're not allowed to defend against. It's weird.
The best defense against unions forming is strong state and federal labor protections but for the life of me I can't understand why certain folks in power seem hell-bent on rolling them back. They have been incredibly effective in the US, they're not adversarial, and they benefit everyone without workers having to do anything. "Right-to-work" states always act so shocked when workers form unions to get those protections back like that isn't exactly why those laws were passed.
Most union employees don't understand this; They think they work for company A when it's convenient for them, and company B when it's convenient for them, cherry-picking whatever suits them at the moment. Because legal formalisms aren't real and human behavior is, unions provide a thin veneer over petty human squabbles, one that mostly works.
Most union agitators absolutely understand this, but will never admit it. In classic orwellian fashion, they are the pigs, "overthrowing" the farmers "for the good of the farm animals" with every intent of just becoming the new farmers.
This level of adversarial thinking is part of the problem. They're your employees, not your enemy.
A sibling comment alludes to violence; the history of labour organizing is full of employers opening fire on their employees, or hiring third parties to do so. The formalization of labour organizing and protected rights gives people a means to negotiate on a more equal footing that doesn't lead to violence.
> You have a right to strike, picket, and protest regarding work-related issues, but there are limitations and qualifications on the exercise of that right. Your right to engage in these activities depends on the object or purpose of the action, on its timing, or on the conduct of those involved.
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...
> have an obviously cancerous group inside your organization
Is comparing unions to cancer not a judgement? Your comment reads anti-union and oblivious to the concept of worker’s right and the history to corporations literally attacking union members.