Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—3d Cir.: Norris-LaGuardia Act barred federal district court from enjoining ALJ proceedings as ‘unconstitutional’, (Dec 4, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

The case is at odds with a Fifth Circuit opinion holding that SpaceX’s action to enjoin NLRB proceedings against it did not “grow out” of the underlying labor dispute.

The Norris-LaGuardia Act strips federal district courts of jurisdiction to enjoin unfair-labor-practice proceedings, despite an employer’s contention that NLRB members and administrative law judges are unconstitutionally insulated from removal by the President, the Third Circuit held. A federal district court injunction against the NLRB’s administrative proceedings “would put a thumb on the scale for [the employer] in the underlying dispute, precisely the kind of ‘judicial interference in management-labor relations’ the Act’s anti-injunction provisions seek to prevent.” Congress did not limit the applicability of the Norris-LaGuardia Act only to cases involving identical parties to a labor dispute, and it did not create an exception for challenges to agency structure, according to the appeals court. Judge Montgomery-Reeves concurred (Spring Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center LLC v. NLRB, No. 24-3043 (3d Cir. Dec. 3, 2025)).

Unionized skilled nursing facility. Spring Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center LLC, according to the court, bought a skilled nursing facility from Amboy Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in November 2021. For years prior to the sale, Amboy maintained a collective-bargaining relationship with 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, which represented the facility’s employees. The most recent labor contract between the union and Amboy became effective in June 2017 and expired in June 2020.

ULP charge. The union filed unfair labor practice (ULP) charge against Amboy with the NLRB in August 2021 after learning about Amboy’s agreement to sell the facility. The union’s primary contention was that Amboy violated the expired contract’s successor provisions by selling the facility to Spring Creek without requiring it to “be personally responsible for all unpaid wages, welfare fund payments, vacations, holidays, sick leave and all other monetary items.”

Not assuming the contract. In advance of its impending November 2021 takeover, Spring Creek sent a letter to the union stating that it would not assume the expired labor contract. Spring Creek alleged it was free to set terms and conditions of employment unilaterally without bargaining with the union. In May 2023, the union amended its ULP charge with the NLRB to add Spring Creek as a party.

NLRB’s complaint. The NLRB issued a complaint against Spring Creek in May 2024 and an amended complaint two months later. It alleged that Spring Creek refused to “bargain collectively and in good faith with the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5)” of the NLRA. The Board’s complaint also gave notice to Spring Creek that it would be required to appear at a hearing before an ALJ in September 2024.

Injunction action. Spring Creek then filed an action in federal district court in New Jersey seeking an injunction to stop the NLRB from holding the hearing. Spring Creek claimed that the hearing would be unlawful because NLRB ALJs enjoy allegedly unconstitutional protections from removal by the President.

District court’s decision and appeal. The district court denied Spring Creek’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding it failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief. The NLRB then held the hearing but has not yet issued a decision. Appealing to the Third Circuit, Spring Creek challenged the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the district court still may enjoin the ALJ from issuing a decision.

NLRB’s new argument on appeal. On appeal, the NLRB raised a new argument: the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 101, strips the federal district court of jurisdiction to issue the injunctive relief Spring Creeks seeks. Even though it did not raise this issue in the prior proceedings, the Third Circuit observed, the court would consider the Board’s new argument because it goes to the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, an issue that can never be forfeited or waived.

Norris-LaGuardia Act and “growing out of a labor dispute.” The Norris-LaGuardia Act’s anti-injunction provisions, the appeals court initially observed, strip district courts of jurisdiction to issue injunctions in cases growing out of a labor dispute unless they follow strict procedures. Section 1 of the Act provides, “[N]o court of the United States[]... shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except in a strict conformity with the provisions of this chapter; nor shall any such restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction be issued contrary to the public policy declared in this chapter.” 29 U.S.C. § 101.

Exceptions. If Section 1 applies to a case, continued the Third Circuit, it does not bar injunctive relief outright. Instead, it strips the district court of jurisdiction to grant the requested relief unless the case fits an exception elsewhere in the Act, specifically in Section 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 107. The Third Circuit also recognizes two exceptions to the Act’s applicability altogether, under either of which a court has the jurisdiction to afford a party to a labor dispute injunctive relief without following Section 7’s requirements. The exceptions are those necessary (1) “to accommodate [the] strong federal policy in favor of arbitration” and (2) “to reconcile the [Act] with other federal statutes.”

Involves a labor dispute... The appeals court first found that the subject of the NLRB’s charge against Spring Creek undoubtedly involves a labor dispute. “The employer-employee relationship is the ‘matrix’ of that controversy (meaning it frames the dispute) because it concerns whether Spring Creek, an employer, failed to bargain collectively and in good faith with its employees’ collective bargaining representative over the terms of their employment.”

That did not, however, end the Norris-LaGuardia Act inquiry because the action here sought only to challenge the power of the NLRB to decide the dispute, and the constitutional issues it raised are collateral to the merits of the ULP charge. “Because there is a degree of separation between this case and the underlying dispute,” the Third Circuit observed, “we must consider whether the former still ‘involves’ or ‘grows out of’ Spring Creek’s labor dispute with the Union within the meaning of the Act.”

…and grows out of a labor dispute. Giving the Act a broad construction based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, 481 U.S. 429 (1987), the Third Circuit concluded that the case “involves” or “grows out of” the labor dispute between the union and Spring Creek. “It could not have brought this action but for the underlying dispute,” and “if the District Court enjoined the NLRB’s administrative proceedings, it would prevent the tribunal tasked by Congress with deciding the Union’s unfair labor practices charge from resolving the merits of the case.”

“[A] thumb on the scale.” That possibility, said the federal appeals court, “would put a thumb on the scale for Spring Creek in the underlying dispute, precisely the kind of ‘judicial interference in management-labor relations’ the Act’s anti-injunction provisions seek to prevent.”

At odds with Fifth Circuit in Space Exploration. The Third Circuit noted that its position in the case is at odds with that of the Fifth Circuit in Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. NLRB, 151 F.4th 761 (5th Cir. 2025), which held that SpaceX’s action to enjoin the NLRB’s administrative proceedings against it did not “grow out” of its underlying labor dispute with its employees.

Space Exploration held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not apply to suits such as this one because Congress’s aim in passing the statute “was not... to bar constitutional challenges to agency structure,” but the Third Circuit found this interpretation of the act too narrow.

“True,” the Third Circuit observed, “Congress passed it ‘primarily to limit the availability of injunctive relief in labor strikes’ at a time when employers frequently sought to enjoin strikes through ex parte applications to federal courts… However, its anti-injunction provisions also serve the ‘broader goal of... prevent[ing] judicial interference in management-labor relations.’” Congress did not exempt challenges to agency structure from the Act’s ambit, the appeals court noted, and the Supreme Court “instructs that it is to be interpreted broadly.” Jacksonville Bulk Terminals, Inc. v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 457 U.S. 702, 708 (1982).

No applicable exception. Finally, the Third Circuit found that the case is not one that “falls within a judicially-carved exception to the [Act].” Again, the two exceptions are (1) “those to accommodate the strong federal policy in favor of arbitration” and (2) “those to reconcile the [Act] with other federal statutes.” Neither applied because the case does not involve arbitration, and Spring Creek’s claim for injunctive relief is not based on any federal statutory rights.

Concurrence. Concurring, Judge Montgomery-Reeves agreed with the majority that Spring Creek’s claims must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but she reached that conclusion based solely on the issue of standing under Article III, under which the employer was unable to allege adequately that it was harmed by any restrictions on removing NLRB members or ALJs.

The case is No. 24-3043.

Judge: Ambro, T.

Attorneys: Louis J. Capozzi, Jr. (Capozzi Adler) for Spring Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center LLC d/b/a Spring Creek Healthcare Center. Steven Bieszczat for the NLRB.

Companies: Spring Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center LLC; Spring Creek Healthcare Center

MainStory: TopStory Labor UnfairLaborPractices RemediesDamages Procedure DelawareNews NewJerseyNews PennsylvaniaNews GCNNews