Nob Hill General Stores, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Contracting parties use a “notwithstanding any language to the contrary” clause in their contracts to preclude the applicability of competing contractual language. It is universally established principle of American jurisprudence that such clauses trump all other contractual language regardless of how arguable or compelling the competing contractual claim. Through the expedient mechanism of issuing an unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit, in manifest contravention of this Court’s precedent, found that a “notwithstanding” clause in a collective bargaining agreement was “tethered” to other contractual language such that competing contractual claims were applicable and could be administered by the union.

1. Whether Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10 (1993), precludes the Ninth Circuit from finding that a contractual “notwithstanding” clause – which provides that a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) shall have no applicability “whatsoever” to a new store – is “tethered” to other CBA terms such that those contractual provisions are arguably enforceable.

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s Local Rule, that results in designating more than 90% of its decisions as having “no precedential” value, is violative of Article III and/or the Due Process Clause and/or the Equal Protection Clause.

3. Whether the Ninth Circuit applies its Local Rule, specifying which decisions shall be published, in an