Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

J.G. Kern Enterprises, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 22-1287, 22-1293 · judgment March 1, 2024


Certiorari denied · October 15, 2024
Pre-decision estimate: 11% cert probability (95% interval 7%–16%)

Before the decision, about 2.6× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a D.C. Circuit decision below, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition).

Questions presented

Under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the "Board”) is charged with protecting the right of employees to engage in concerted, protected activity including union representation, and to refrain from such activity/representation. 29 U.S.C. § 157. The NLRB reviews complaints of unfair labor practices under the NLRA to determine if any such unlawful conduct has occurred by preponderant evidence. 29 U.S.C. § 160(c). The Board is bound by the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to adhere to valid and consistent precedents and policies, absent a non-arbitrary explanation for reversing the agency’s applications of the law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). This Court has recently held that reviewing courts should not defer to interpretations of law by agencies governed by the APA; rather, courts must independently decide a statute’s “best meaning.” Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Nos. 22-451 and 22-1219, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024) (overruling Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). With this background, the questions presented here, on which the circuits are split, are:

  1. Whether the NLRB is precluded from relying on precedent vacated by a court of appeals in issuing an order that is arbitrary and capricious;

  2. Whether courts of appeal following Loper Bright are precluded from enforcing NLRB orders that ignore court rulings under the NLRB’s so-called “non-acquiescence” doctrine.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Maurice Baskin
Littler Mendelson, P.C.

For respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Solicitor General

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Oct 15 2024
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Sep 25 2024
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2024.
  3. Sep 23 2024
    Waiver of right of respondent National Labor Relations Board to respond filed.
  4. Aug 21 2024
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 23, 2024)