Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, REMEDIES, DAMAGES—D. Utah: Federal court refuses to grant injunction against administrative proceedings in NLRB case, (Jul 24, 2026)

By Ursula Furi-Perry. J.D., MBA

The Norris-LaGuardia Act deprived the court of authority to enjoin proceedings arising from the underlying labor dispute, and even apart from that statutory bar, the employer failed to establish irreparable harm.

An employer in the cannabis industry is not entitled to an emergency preliminary injunction to stop an upcoming NLRB administrative hearing concerning alleged unfair labor practices, a federal district court fond. The employer argued that the NLRB proceedings violated constitutional protections, including separation-of-powers principles and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Denying the injunction, the court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act deprived it of authority to enjoin proceedings arising from the underlying labor dispute and that, even apart from that statutory bar, the employer failed to establish irreparable harm (True North of Utah, LLC v. NLRB, No. 1:26-cv-00108-AMA-PK (D. Utah July 20, 2026)).

True North. The employer, True North of Utah, doing business as The Flower Shop, operates a medical cannabis business under Utah law. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 99 filed unfair labor practice charges against the employer with the National Labor Relations Board. According to the NLRB’s complaint, the union sent the employer a letter in March 2024 signed by several employees who requested union recognition. Over the following weeks, the employer allegedly discharged four employees who had signed the letter, banned two of those former employees from entering its premises, and refused to respond to the union’s request for recognition or bargaining.

Charges. The NLRB alleged that these actions violated the National Labor Relations Act by interfering with employees’ protected rights, discriminating against employees to discourage union membership, and refusing to recognize and bargain with the union. The administrative complaint sought reinstatement and make-whole relief for the discharged employees, an order requiring the employer to recognize and bargain with the union, reimbursement for foreseeable expenses resulting from the terminations or facility bans, and the mailing and public reading of an NLRB notice.

ALJ hearing… The NLRB scheduled an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) for July 21, 2026. The employer filed an answer raising several affirmative defenses and separately asked the ALJ to postpone the hearing. Before the agency ruled on that request, the employer filed an emergency motion in federal court seeking a preliminary injunction that would halt the entire NLRB proceeding.

Emergency motion. The employer did not primarily ask the district court to decide whether it had committed the alleged unfair labor practices. Instead, it filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah and challenged the constitutionality of the NLRB’s adjudicative structure. It argued that the agency’s decisional officers enjoyed unconstitutional protection from presidential removal and that the administrative proceeding could deprive it of its Seventh Amendment jury-trial right, particularly if the NLRB awarded expanded make-whole relief. The union also moved to intervene in the federal action.

Injunction barred. The court first held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which sharply limits federal courts’ authority to issue injunctions in cases involving or growing out of labor disputes, barred the injunction. The underlying NLRB complaint plainly concerned a labor dispute because it involved employee union activity, alleged retaliatory terminations, union recognition, and collective bargaining. The court rejected the employer’s narrow argument that its constitutional claims remained separate from the merits of the labor dispute because they challenged the NLRB’s structure rather than the specific unfair labor practice allegations. It agreed with decisions from the Third and Ninth Circuits holding that constitutional challenges to NLRB proceedings still grow out of labor disputes when the employer would not have filed the federal lawsuit without the agency proceeding, and noted that enjoining the proceeding would also interfere directly with the tribunal Congress selected to resolve the union’s charges. Because the employer did not show that any statutory or judicial exception applied, the court lacked authority to issue the injunction.

No irreparable harm. The court also concluded that the employer failed to establish irreparable harm, an essential requirement for preliminary injunctive relief. The employer claimed that it would suffer harm by participating in proceedings conducted by agency officials who allegedly enjoyed unconstitutional removal protections. However, a separation-of-powers violation does not automatically establish irreparable harm, the court explained, noting the employer needed to show that the challenged removal protections actually affected its proceeding.

Seventh Amendment. The employer’s Seventh Amendment argument also failed. The court explained that unfair labor practice proceedings involve public statutory rights unknown to the common law, and the Supreme Court has long held that the Seventh Amendment does not require jury trials in NLRB proceedings. Finally, the employer’s litigation expenses and unsupported claims of reputational harm did not constitute irreparable injury, the court held: ordinary economic costs generally can be remedied, and the employer presented no concrete evidence of imminent reputational damage. Because the Norris-LaGuardia Act barred the requested relief and the employer failed to show likely, immediate, and irreparable harm, the court denied the preliminary injunction. It denied the union’s request for emergency intervention as moot but left the union’s broader motion to intervene pending.

The case is No. 1:26-cv-00108-AMA-PK.

Judge: Allen, A.

Attorneys: Jeffrey W. Toppel (Brueckner Spitler Shelts) for True North of Utah LLC d/b/a The Flower Shop. James Kirwan for the NLRB, Crystal Stowe Carey, James R. Murphy, Scott A. Mayer, and Geoffrey Carter.

Companies: True North of Utah LLC; The Flower Shop

Cases: Labor UnfairLaborPractices Procedure RemediesDamages UtahNews