December 29, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
December 29, 2025 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Published Opinion
Executive Summary
In a published opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Amazon’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to halt ongoing unfair labor practice proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). Amazon argued that statutory removal protections for NLRB members and administrative law judges were unconstitutional and sought to enjoin the administrative case initiated after Teamsters-affiliated representatives filed unfair labor practice charges. The district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which strips federal courts of authority “to issue any … injunction in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute.” 29 U.S.C. § 101. The Ninth Circuit agreed, holding that the case both “involves” and “grows out of” a labor dispute within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 113. In doing so, the court aligned with the Third Circuit and declined to follow the Fifth Circuit’s contrary reasoning in Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. NLRB, 151 F.4th 761 (5th Cir. 2025).
Relevant Background
Following the termination of a delivery contractor relationship, Teamsters-affiliated representatives asserted that Amazon and the contractor were joint employers of certain delivery drivers and demanded bargaining recognition. When Amazon declined, unfair labor practice charges were filed with the NLRB. The General Counsel issued a complaint, and the matter proceeded toward administrative adjudication.
Instead of awaiting final agency action and seeking review through the NLRA’s statutory appellate framework, Amazon filed suit in federal district court. It sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that statutory limits on the President’s ability to remove NLRB members and administrative law judges violated separation-of-powers principles. Amazon moved for a preliminary injunction to halt the administrative proceedings.
The district court denied the motion, holding that the Norris-LaGuardia Act deprived it of jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief because the case involved or grew out of a labor dispute. Amazon appealed.
Decision
The Ninth Circuit began with the statutory text. Section 101 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act provides that “[n]o court of the United States … shall have jurisdiction to issue any … temporary or permanent injunction in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute.” 29 U.S.C. § 101. The Act defines a “labor dispute” broadly to include “any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons” in negotiating employment terms. 29 U.S.C. § 113(c).
The court emphasized that § 113(a) imposes separate requirements for the pending “case” and the underlying “labor dispute.” Amazon.com Servs., LLC v. Teamsters Amazon Nat’l Negotiating Comm., — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 3752184, at *4 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2025). The federal lawsuit need only “involve or … grow out of” a labor dispute; it need not itself be framed as a traditional employer-employee controversy. Id.
Applying that framework, the Ninth Circuit concluded that both components were satisfied. First, the underlying NLRB proceeding plainly constituted a labor dispute because it concerned representation and bargaining obligations between an employer and a union. Id. at *6. Second, the federal constitutional challenge “involve[d]” persons with direct interests in that labor dispute because Amazon sought to halt the administrative mechanism through which the union was attempting to vindicate its statutory rights. Id. at *5–6.
The court rejected Amazon’s argument that the case fell outside the Act because the named defendants were federal officials rather than employees or a union. Relying on Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Act broadly, including New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552 (1938), and Columbia River Packers Ass’n v. Hinton, 315 U.S. 143 (1942), the Ninth Circuit reasoned that Congress intentionally expanded the scope of the Act beyond direct employer-employee litigation. 2025 WL 3752184, at *7–8.
The panel also addressed the developing circuit split. The Fifth Circuit in SpaceX had concluded that similar constitutional challenges to the NLRB’s structure fell outside the Act. 151 F.4th at 770–71. The Ninth Circuit declined to follow that approach, aligning instead with the Third Circuit’s decision in Spring Creek Rehabilitation & Nursing Center LLC v. NLRB, 160 F.4th 380 (3d Cir. 2025), which held that structural constitutional claims are not categorically exempt from the Act’s anti-injunction mandate. 2025 WL 3752184, at *4, *9.
Finally, the Ninth Circuit rejected reliance on the Thunder Basin framework. See Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994). The court explained that Thunder Basin concerns implied jurisdictional preclusion, whereas the Norris-LaGuardia Act contains an explicit jurisdiction-stripping provision. 2025 WL 3752184, at *8. Where Congress has clearly withdrawn jurisdiction, the court held, the analysis ends.
Importantly, the Ninth Circuit did not reach the merits of Amazon’s constitutional claims. Nor did it foreclose eventual judicial review. Rather, it held only that federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue injunctions halting NLRB proceedings in cases that involve or grow out of labor disputes. Review remains available through the NLRA’s established petition-for-review process after a final Board order.
Looking Forward
This decision carries immediate significance for employers, including franchisors, operating within the Ninth Circuit. Courts in California and other Ninth Circuit states are likely to apply the Norris-LaGuardia Act broadly to bar district court injunctions aimed at stopping NLRB proceedings—even when those challenges are framed in constitutional terms.
At the same time, the opinion should be read with precision. The court did not endorse the merits of the underlying unfair labor practice allegations, expand joint employer doctrine, or resolve the constitutionality of removal protections. It addressed only the jurisdictional limits imposed by 29 U.S.C. § 101. Employers retain the ability to challenge Board decisions, including constitutional arguments, through the statutory appellate review pathway.
For franchisors, the practical lesson is procedural rather than substantive. Structural challenges to administrative agencies may encounter threshold jurisdictional barriers before courts reach the merits. Accordingly, franchisors confronting unfair labor practice proceedings should prepare to defend those matters on the merits before the agency while preserving appellate arguments for review after final Board action.
As labor litigation continues to intersect with constitutional separation-of-powers arguments, courts appear inclined to enforce explicit statutory limits on injunctive relief. Careful venue strategy and disciplined procedural planning remain critical.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter LLP and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
