{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-25-3110-2026-09-18","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-25-3110-2026-09-18)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-13","fingerprint":"ewai:us:97516d","proof":"sha256:61b37e8b5aedcfe7f4a1b5ed45498ca0face14952ddbe84421110e5276116f94","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca7-25-3110-2026-09-18","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"In the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"For the Seventh Circuit","paragraphs":["para_4"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"ANGIE COWAN HAMADA, Regional Director of Region 13 of the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the Na-","paragraphs":["para_8","para_9","para_10"]},{"title":"LABORFORCE, LLC, M&K EMPLOYEE SERVICES, and M&K TRUCK","paragraphs":["para_12","para_13","para_14"]},{"title":"Appeal from the United States District Court for the","paragraphs":["para_16","para_17","para_18"]},{"title":"ARGUED MAY 12, 2026 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 18, 2026","paragraphs":["para_20"]},{"title":"Before EASTERBROOK, MALDONADO, and TAIBLESON, Cir-","paragraphs":["para_22","para_23"]},{"title":"LLC received petitions from some of its employees requesting","paragraphs":["para_25","para_26"]},{"title":"2 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":["para_28","para_29"]},{"title":"Board (“Board”), claiming that Laborforce had engaged in un-","paragraphs":["para_31"]},{"title":"Act (“NLRA”). Those charges initiated administrative pro-","paragraphs":["para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38"]},{"title":"The district court declined to issue an injunction, and we","paragraphs":["para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49"]},{"title":"I. Background","paragraphs":["para_51"]},{"title":"The NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., protects employees’","paragraphs":["para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 3","paragraphs":["para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67"]},{"title":"The complaint triggers adjudicatory proceedings within","paragraphs":["para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73"]},{"title":"But if the parties do file exceptions, the Board reviews the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"ALJ’s recommendation and issues an order that may (or may","paragraphs":["para_76"]},{"title":"101.12(a). The Board’s order, in turn, is subject to review in a","paragraphs":["para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84"]},{"title":"NLRA authorizes the Board “upon issuance of a complaint …","paragraphs":["para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89"]},{"title":"4 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":["para_91"]},{"title":"M&K Truck Centers operates truck dealerships that ser-","paragraphs":["para_93"]},{"title":"One of those dealerships is in Summit, Illinois. The Summit","paragraphs":["para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99"]},{"title":"Employees at the Summit dealership have been repre-","paragraphs":["para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109"]},{"title":"Laborforce employed Joe Loman in the Parts Department","paragraphs":["para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117"]},{"title":"July of 2023, Loman presented his decertification petition to","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"1 In layman’s terms, a bargaining unit is simply a group of employees","paragraphs":["para_120"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 5","paragraphs":["para_122","para_123","para_124"]},{"title":"Laborforce responded quickly. Shortly after Loman pre-","paragraphs":["para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131"]},{"title":"Truck Center facilities in the area,” a new insurance plan that","paragraphs":["para_133","para_134","para_135"]},{"title":"While awaiting the formal withdrawal date, Laborforce","paragraphs":["para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140"]},{"title":"Employees,” and it proposed to limit that unit to “All Service","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Department Employees.” Laborforce explained that it sought","paragraphs":["para_143","para_144"]},{"title":"2 Laborforce could not immediately withdraw recognition of the un-","paragraphs":["para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150"]},{"title":"781, 786 (1996)). Laborforce thus withdrew recognition as of the date that","paragraphs":["para_152"]},{"title":"6 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":["para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158"]},{"title":"Notwithstanding the Board’s denial of Laborforce’s unit","paragraphs":["para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165"]},{"title":"But Loman was not finished with his decertification ef-","paragraphs":["para_167","para_168"]},{"title":"Parts and Service Departments—to support decertification. So","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Loman presented a second decertification petition in June of","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"2024. This time, the petition was signed by a combined major-","paragraphs":["para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179"]},{"title":"In response to these events, the union filed multiple","paragraphs":["para_181","para_182","para_183"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 7","paragraphs":["para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190"]},{"title":"Parts and Service Department employees was also unlawful","paragraphs":["para_192","para_193","para_194"]},{"title":"From its very first charge filed in July of 2023 (when Lo-","paragraphs":["para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203"]},{"title":"While the Director’s § 10(j) petition was pending in the dis-","paragraphs":["para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213"]},{"title":"Parts Department’s wages and benefits that would tend to","paragraphs":["para_215"]},{"title":"8 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Four days later, the district court denied the Director’s pe-","paragraphs":["para_218"]},{"title":"Director had failed to establish irreparable harm, a likelihood","paragraphs":["para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225"]},{"title":"II. Discussion","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The Director challenges the denial of her petition for a","paragraphs":["para_228","para_229","para_230"]},{"title":"Members of Med. Lic. Bd., 121 F.4th 604, 614 (7th Cir. 2024); Har-","paragraphs":["para_232","para_233"]},{"title":"In Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, the Supreme Court held","paragraphs":["para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242"]},{"title":"(quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(2008)). Starbucks did not directly overrule our case law, as we","paragraphs":["para_245","para_246"]},{"title":"286 (7th Cir. 2001)). But the Supreme Court did emphasize","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 9","paragraphs":["para_249","para_250","para_251"]},{"title":"The irreparable harm factor is dispositive in this case, and","paragraphs":["para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258"]},{"title":"To show irreparable harm, the Director must “(1) specifi-","paragraphs":["para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263"]},{"title":"NLRB v. Trinity Health Grand Haven Hosp., 174 F.4th 942, 958","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(6th Cir. 2026). The relevant injuries that may support a § 10(j)","paragraphs":["para_266"]},{"title":"NLRA—including employees’ rights to “self-organization,”","paragraphs":["para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276"]},{"title":"10 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":["para_278"]},{"title":"The Director has not made such a showing here. To","paragraphs":["para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290"]},{"title":"In these circumstances, the “employees’ lack of union rep-","paragraphs":["para_292","para_293","para_294"]},{"title":"F.3d 1119, 1125 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). That is true","paragraphs":["para_296"]},{"title":"First, if a union falling out of favor suffices to show irrep-","paragraphs":["para_298","para_299"]},{"title":"Board is likely to succeed on the merits of certain unfair labor","paragraphs":["para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 11","paragraphs":["para_310","para_311","para_312"]},{"title":"Second, the facts of this case implicate not only employees’","paragraphs":["para_314","para_315"]},{"title":"Before Laborforce undertook any alleged unfair labor prac-","paragraphs":["para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322"]},{"title":"Director argues that an injunction would vindicate the Sum-","paragraphs":["para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335"]},{"title":"The dissent rejects this latter point, arguing that the","paragraphs":["para_337","para_338"]},{"title":"See Diss. Op. at 28–31. Indeed, the dissent describes the Direc-","paragraphs":["para_340"]},{"title":"12 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":["para_342","para_343","para_344"]},{"title":"U.S.C. § 157 (“Employees shall have the right to self-organi-","paragraphs":["para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364"]},{"title":"The evidence here—of genuine employee disaffection","paragraphs":["para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369"]},{"title":"Sep. 22, 2025) (district court finding below that the “Union has","paragraphs":["para_371","para_372","para_373"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 13","paragraphs":["para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379"]},{"title":"(7th Cir. 1996) (reversing district court’s denial of injunction","paragraphs":["para_381","para_382","para_383"]},{"title":"Foods, 276 F.3d at 298–300 (reversing district court’s denial of","paragraphs":["para_385","para_386","para_387"]},{"title":"LLC, 546 F.3d 491, 495–98, 501–02 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming","paragraphs":["para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392"]},{"title":"566, 568–69, 573 (7th Cir. 2011) (affirming grant of injunction","paragraphs":["para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399","para_400"]},{"title":"3 The dissent—but not the Director—suggests that a “mysterious 15%","paragraphs":["para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405","para_406"]},{"title":"14 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":["para_408","para_409","para_410"]},{"title":"To the extent any of our cases suggests that irreparable","paragraphs":["para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415","para_416","para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421","para_422","para_423","para_424","para_425","para_426","para_427","para_428","para_429","para_430","para_431","para_432","para_433","para_434"]},{"title":"Circuit that “with the Supreme Court’s Starbucks decision now our guid-","paragraphs":["para_436","para_437"]},{"title":"Health Grand Haven Hosp., 174 F.4th 942, 955 (6th Cir. 2026); see also McKin-","paragraphs":["para_439"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 15","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Rather than follow Starbucks, the dissent claims to be fol-","paragraphs":["para_442","para_443","para_444"]},{"title":"Op. at 33, 35. But while Starbucks concerns the precise issue","paragraphs":["para_446","para_447","para_448","para_449","para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455"]},{"title":"Gissel is even further afield. That case involved an employer’s","paragraphs":["para_457","para_458","para_459","para_460","para_461","para_462","para_463","para_464"]},{"title":"Diss. Op. at 27. But these harms must be real and specific injuries to stat-","paragraphs":["para_466","para_467"]},{"title":"5 The dissent also cites Franks Bros. Co. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 702, 705","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(1944), for the proposition that “a § 10(j) remedy ‘does not involve any in-","paragraphs":["para_470","para_471","para_472"]},{"title":"16 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Our irreparable-harm inquiry is instead guided by the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"NLRA’s text, Starbucks, and the many cases instructing that a","paragraphs":["para_476","para_477","para_478","para_479","para_480"]},{"title":"Were there any doubt about the irreparable-harm issue in","paragraphs":["para_482","para_483","para_484","para_485","para_486","para_487"]},{"title":"S. Bakeries, 786 F.3d at 1125 (citation omitted). That is the case","paragraphs":["para_489"]},{"title":"The parties disagree about how to count the months of de-","paragraphs":["para_491","para_492","para_493","para_494","para_495","para_496","para_497","para_498","para_499","para_500","para_501","para_502","para_503","para_504"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 17","paragraphs":["para_506","para_507","para_508","para_509","para_510","para_511","para_512"]},{"title":"In the meantime, the regular administrative process chugs","paragraphs":["para_514","para_515","para_516","para_517","para_518","para_519"]},{"title":"Given this timeline, it is hard to see how the Director acted","paragraphs":["para_521","para_522"]},{"title":"Director asks us to grant “an extraordinary remedy” to jump","paragraphs":["para_524","para_525","para_526","para_527"]},{"title":"Op. at 35; it would whipsaw employees who long ago voted","paragraphs":["para_529","para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533","para_534"]},{"title":"The Director argues that the upcoming expiration of the","paragraphs":["para_536"]},{"title":"18 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":["para_538","para_539","para_540","para_541","para_542","para_543","para_544","para_545","para_546","para_547","para_548","para_549","para_550","para_551","para_552","para_553"]},{"title":"Like the district court, we cannot find irreparable harm on","paragraphs":["para_555"]},{"title":"The district judge also considered other preliminary-injunc-","paragraphs":["para_557","para_558","para_559","para_560","para_561"]},{"title":"Recall that the first decertification petition was signed only","paragraphs":["para_563","para_564","para_565","para_566","para_567","para_568"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 19","paragraphs":["para_570","para_571","para_572","para_573","para_574","para_575"]},{"title":"That was a mistake. It is true that, in considering a § 10(j)","paragraphs":["para_577","para_578","para_579","para_580","para_581","para_582","para_583","para_584","para_585","para_586","para_587","para_588","para_589","para_590","para_591"]},{"title":"6 Because we are not reviewing the Board’s final decision on the mer-","paragraphs":["para_593","para_594","para_595"]},{"title":"20 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"MALDONADO, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Although Starbucks","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339 (2024), changed several","paragraphs":["para_599","para_600","para_601","para_602","para_603"]},{"title":"Cir. 2001)), and that endorsement leaves untouched decades","paragraphs":["para_605","para_606"]},{"title":"Foods, 276 F.3d at 299 (citation modified). Now, as before, the","paragraphs":["para_608","para_609"]},{"title":"Board’s “ability to remedy a violation of labor rights will","paragraphs":["para_611","para_612","para_613"]},{"title":"Compelled by its expansive view of Starbucks, the majority","paragraphs":["para_615","para_616","para_617","para_618","para_619"]},{"title":"F.2d 485, 493 (7th Cir. 1989). And focusing on harm to","paragraphs":["para_621","para_622","para_623","para_624","para_625"]},{"title":"92-2733 & 92-3171, 1993 WL 410875, at *10, enforced, 9 F.3d 113","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(7th Cir. 1993) (citing Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"U.S. 678, 687 (1944)). In fact, the majority’s novel irreparable","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 21","paragraphs":["para_630","para_631","para_632"]},{"title":"If the Board ultimately concludes that Laborforce sought","paragraphs":["para_634","para_635","para_636"]},{"title":"48.6% of the bargaining unit did not vote to decertify the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Union, but if more time passes, and the Union remains","paragraphs":["para_639"]},{"title":"Union might thin in their ranks. The stakes are especially high","paragraphs":["para_641"]},{"title":"Summit Facility employees for more than 70 years, and","paragraphs":["para_643","para_644","para_645","para_646","para_647","para_648","para_649"]},{"title":"The Director has clearly shown that the labor effort at the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Summit Facility faces irreparable harm in the absence of","paragraphs":["para_652","para_653","para_654","para_655"]},{"title":"1 As the Director noted in the district court and on appeal, the","paragraphs":["para_657","para_658","para_659"]},{"title":"22 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"I","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Before diving into the majority’s analysis, it is worth","paragraphs":["para_663","para_664","para_665","para_666","para_667"]},{"title":"Health Grand Haven Hospital, 174 F.4th 942 (6th Cir. 2026), that","paragraphs":["para_669","para_670","para_671"]},{"title":"But the Director does not demand equitable relief","paragraphs":["para_673","para_674"]},{"title":"Rather, when the Director seeks § 10(j) relief, she does so in an","paragraphs":["para_676","para_677","para_678","para_679"]},{"title":"(1941) (“The Board … is the agency of Congress for","paragraphs":["para_681","para_682","para_683","para_684"]},{"title":"1st Sess. 8 (1947)). As the majority notes, the Board’s","paragraphs":["para_686"]},{"title":"2 29 U.S.C. § 160(a), (j); NLRB, Off. of the Gen. Couns., Section 10(j)","paragraphs":["para_688","para_689","para_690"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 23","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Congress “added to the Board’s arsenal” the discretionary","paragraphs":["para_693"]},{"title":"Pioneer Press, 881 F.2d at 488. This power serves “as a means","paragraphs":["para_695","para_696","para_697"]},{"title":"Voice, Inc., 83 F.3d 1559, 1575 (7th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted);","paragraphs":["para_699"]},{"title":"Voice, 83 F.3d at 1575) (“Congress designed § 10(j) … so that","paragraphs":["para_701","para_702","para_703","para_704","para_705","para_706"]},{"title":"The Board’s “screening process for determining when to","paragraphs":["para_708","para_709","para_710"]},{"title":"(detailing four-stage deliberative process before § 10(j)","paragraphs":["para_712","para_713","para_714","para_715","para_716","para_717","para_718","para_719","para_720","para_721","para_722"]},{"title":"24 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Data from the Board reveals that the vast majority of","paragraphs":["para_725","para_726"]},{"title":"See Starbucks, 602 U.S. at 363 (Jackson, J.). For instance, “[o]f","paragraphs":["para_728","para_729","para_730","para_731","para_732"]},{"title":"Injunctions, https://www.nlrb.gov/what-we-do/investigate-","paragraphs":["para_734"]},{"title":"Given that the Board spends months applying its expertise","paragraphs":["para_736","para_737","para_738","para_739","para_740","para_741","para_742"]},{"title":"Health, 174 F.4th at 957), is simply not supported by the","paragraphs":["para_744"]},{"title":"I note the Board’s selectivity in filing § 10(j) petitions not","paragraphs":["para_746","para_747","para_748","para_749"]},{"title":"602 U.S. at 350–351. Instead, I mean to emphasize that when","paragraphs":["para_751"]},{"title":"Board acts not as a mere party movant in favor of the union","paragraphs":["para_753","para_754"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 25","paragraphs":["para_756"]},{"title":"(1987). While we are not bound by and do not defer to the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Board’s reasoning, we (who are not labor experts) do","paragraphs":["para_759"]},{"title":"Board’s critical gatekeeping function in the filing of § 10(j)","paragraphs":["para_761"]},{"title":"II","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"With a more fulsome understanding of the context in","paragraphs":["para_764","para_765"]},{"title":"Even with the appropriate deference to the district court, its","paragraphs":["para_767","para_768"]},{"title":"A","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The majority opinion hangs on the notion that preliminary","paragraphs":["para_771","para_772","para_773"]},{"title":"9, 16–18. But this reasoning collapses concepts, taking an","paragraphs":["para_775","para_776","para_777","para_778"]},{"title":"Starbucks, 602 U.S. at 347, by instead requiring the Director to","paragraphs":["para_780","para_781","para_782"]},{"title":"COMMENTARIES 47 (1768). Early twentieth century Supreme Court","paragraphs":["para_784"]},{"title":"U.S. 94, 110 (1921) (avoiding hardship “in the interest of substantial","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"26 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"In Pioneer Press, we rejected the standard now set forth by","paragraphs":["para_788","para_789","para_790","para_791","para_792","para_793"]},{"title":"A remedy can be “extraordinary” in that categorical","paragraphs":["para_795","para_796","para_797","para_798","para_799","para_800","para_801","para_802","para_803","para_804","para_805","para_806","para_807","para_808","para_809","para_810"]},{"title":"Director will be able to make an independent showing of","paragraphs":["para_812","para_813","para_814","para_815"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 27","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The majority’s bootstrapping of “serious and","paragraphs":["para_818","para_819","para_820","para_821"]},{"title":"Maj. Op. at 13—is therefore misplaced. Irreparable harm is","paragraphs":["para_823","para_824"]},{"title":"545 (7th Cir. 2021). Insofar as Starbucks cautions against","paragraphs":["para_826","para_827","para_828"]},{"title":"Winter factors. See Maj. Op. at 10 (citing McKinney ex rel. NLRB","paragraphs":["para_830"]},{"title":"B","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Further morphing the equitable inquiry, the majority says","paragraphs":["para_833","para_834","para_835","para_836"]},{"title":"Supreme Court has rejected this buy-off-the-employee","paragraphs":["para_838"]},{"title":"575, 580 n.1 (1969); Medo, 321 U.S. at 679, 687.4 First, it misses","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"4 The majority disavows reliance on Gissel or Medo because the cases","paragraphs":["para_841","para_842","para_843","para_844","para_845","para_846","para_847","para_848"]},{"title":"28 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":["para_850","para_851"]},{"title":"1567. Second, it creates a safe harbor for an employer to defeat","paragraphs":["para_853"]},{"title":"And third, it misconstrues a § 10(j) injunction as undermining","paragraphs":["para_855","para_856","para_857","para_858"]},{"title":"To start, the majority incorrectly replaces harm to the","paragraphs":["para_860","para_861","para_862","para_863"]},{"title":"Francisco Foods, 276 F.3d at 286, 299; Parking Sys., 162 F.4th at","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"351 (recognizing that Starbucks did not change the standard","paragraphs":["para_866","para_867","para_868","para_869","para_870","para_871","para_872","para_873","para_874","para_875"]},{"title":"Gissel, 395 U.S. at 612 (emphasis added). And Medo too articulates why","paragraphs":["para_877","para_878","para_879","para_880","para_881"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 29","paragraphs":["para_883","para_884"]},{"title":"But it is the Director, not the employees, who files the","paragraphs":["para_886","para_887","para_888","para_889","para_890"]},{"title":"Board’s remedial powers ineffectual.” Electro-Voice, 83 F.3d at","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"1567. After all, “[t]he idea underpinning 10(j) is that a district","paragraphs":["para_893","para_894","para_895","para_896"]},{"title":"F.3d 469, 472 (7th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added) (citing Lineback","paragraphs":["para_898","para_899","para_900","para_901","para_902","para_903","para_904","para_905","para_906","para_907","para_908","para_909"]},{"title":"F.4th at 351 (citation modified); cf. Trinity Health, 174 F.4th at","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"953–54 (“[W]e will not grant [the Director] an injunction","paragraphs":["para_912","para_913"]},{"title":"30 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(emphasis added)); Harrell ex rel. NLRB v. Am. Red Cross, Heart","paragraphs":["para_916"]},{"title":"(holding that irreparable harm “strike[s] at the heart of the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Union’s ability to effectively represent the unit employees”","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(citation omitted)); Aguayo ex rel. NLRB v. Tomco Carburetor","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Co., 853 F.2d 744, 750 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[T]he predominant","paragraphs":["para_921","para_922"]},{"title":"Miller ex rel. NLRB v. Cal. Pac. Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 449, 457 (9th","paragraphs":["para_924","para_925"]},{"title":"Laborforce discussed the potential effect of an injunction on","paragraphs":["para_927","para_928","para_929","para_930","para_931"]},{"title":"The majority responds that nothing “in the NLRA’s text”","paragraphs":["para_933","para_934","para_935","para_936","para_937","para_938","para_939","para_940","para_941"]},{"title":"So here, the Board seeks to enforce the NLRA’s rules of play","paragraphs":["para_943","para_944"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 31","paragraphs":["para_946","para_947"]},{"title":"The majority also insists that these articulated harms are","paragraphs":["para_949","para_950","para_951","para_952","para_953"]},{"title":"174 F.4th at 955 (“To be sure, every court resolving a","paragraphs":["para_955","para_956","para_957"]},{"title":"54 F.4th 1101, 1116 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Frankl v. HTH","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Corp., 650 F.3d 1334, 1363 (9th Cir. 2011)) (distinguishing","paragraphs":["para_960","para_961","para_962"]},{"title":"Second, the majority creates a “safe harbor” from","paragraphs":["para_964","para_965","para_966","para_967","para_968","para_969","para_970"]},{"title":"While the majority focuses on increased wages and benefits (i.e., the 401(k)","paragraphs":["para_972","para_973","para_974","para_975","para_976"]},{"title":"32 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":["para_978","para_979","para_980","para_981","para_982"]},{"title":"687. So “[a]n employer … cannot cause the majority’s support","paragraphs":["para_984","para_985","para_986","para_987"]},{"title":"In Medo, the Supreme Court explained that the NLRA’s","paragraphs":["para_989","para_990","para_991","para_992"]},{"title":"U.S. at 687. There, employees told the employer that “they","paragraphs":["para_994","para_995","para_996","para_997","para_998","para_999","para_1000","para_1001","para_1002","para_1003","para_1004"]},{"title":"And there are hints in the record that the narrative is not as","paragraphs":["para_1006"]},{"title":"Department employees remain on the Union’s health insurance plan after","paragraphs":["para_1008","para_1009","para_1010"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 33","paragraphs":["para_1012","para_1013","para_1014","para_1015","para_1016","para_1017","para_1018","para_1019","para_1020","para_1021","para_1022","para_1023"]},{"title":"The Supreme Court also rejected the employer’s argument","paragraphs":["para_1025","para_1026","para_1027","para_1028","para_1029","para_1030","para_1031","para_1032","para_1033","para_1034","para_1035","para_1036"]},{"title":"(holding that “the promise of benefits such as wage increases”","paragraphs":["para_1038","para_1039","para_1040","para_1041"]},{"title":"34 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The majority now blesses the theory that the Supreme","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Court rejected in Medo. Maj. Op. at 11. The majority notes that","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Laborforce “received an employee-originated petition to","paragraphs":["para_1046","para_1047","para_1048","para_1049","para_1050","para_1051","para_1052","para_1053","para_1054","para_1055"]},{"title":"13. But this analysis critically omits that Loman, for his first","paragraphs":["para_1057"]},{"title":"Departments yet received no signatures from the 51","paragraphs":["para_1059","para_1060","para_1061","para_1062"]},{"title":"The majority’s approach permits an employer to make the","paragraphs":["para_1064","para_1065"]},{"title":"6 Notably, the majority’s only support for this contention is Trinity","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Health, a split Sixth Circuit decision, with Judge Boggs dissenting, that","paragraphs":["para_1068","para_1069","para_1070","para_1071","para_1072","para_1073"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 35","paragraphs":["para_1075","para_1076","para_1077","para_1078","para_1079","para_1080"]},{"title":"Elec. Co., 418 F.2d 736, 755 (2d Cir. 1969). To find no","paragraphs":["para_1082","para_1083"]},{"title":"Medo, but rewards Laborforce for unfair labor practices that","paragraphs":["para_1085"]},{"title":"Third, the majority’s concern with employees’ right to","paragraphs":["para_1087","para_1088","para_1089"]},{"title":"Departing from our circuit’s precedent, the majority contends","paragraphs":["para_1091","para_1092","para_1093"]},{"title":"11. But the Supreme Court rejected the majority’s proposed","paragraphs":["para_1095"]},{"title":"(“There is, after all, nothing permanent in a bargaining","paragraphs":["para_1097","para_1098","para_1099","para_1100","para_1101","para_1102","para_1103"]},{"title":"Union recognition was lawful, then those employees who","paragraphs":["para_1105"]},{"title":"36 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":["para_1107","para_1108","para_1109","para_1110","para_1111","para_1112","para_1113","para_1114","para_1115"]},{"title":"In fact, as collective bargaining resumes, any effect of this","paragraphs":["para_1117","para_1118","para_1119","para_1120","para_1121","para_1122"]},{"title":"C. Bok, The Regulation of Campaign Tactics in Representation","paragraphs":["para_1124","para_1125","para_1126","para_1127","para_1128","para_1129","para_1130","para_1131"]},{"title":"7 Like with Medo and Gissel, the majority distinguishes Franks as","paragraphs":["para_1133","para_1134","para_1135","para_1136","para_1137"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 37","paragraphs":["para_1139","para_1140","para_1141","para_1142"]},{"title":"C","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The district court instead concluded that the Director","paragraphs":["para_1145","para_1146","para_1147","para_1148"]},{"title":"As a threshold matter, while “delay is a factor that may be","paragraphs":["para_1150","para_1151","para_1152"]},{"title":"501 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Gottfried v. Frankel, 818 F.2d 485, 495","paragraphs":["para_1154"]},{"title":"In any event, the majority mistakenly appears to measure","paragraphs":["para_1156","para_1157","para_1158","para_1159"]},{"title":"Op. at 17. This misses the mark. The operative delay in § 10(j)","paragraphs":["para_1161","para_1162"]},{"title":"U.S.C. § 160(j) (“The Board shall have power, upon issuance of","paragraphs":["para_1164","para_1165"]},{"title":"8 For example, the Director listed examples like “grievance protection","paragraphs":["para_1167","para_1168"]},{"title":"38 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"States district court … for appropriate temporary relief or","paragraphs":["para_1171","para_1172","para_1173","para_1174"]},{"title":"The § 10(j) petition was predicated on the complaint, as","paragraphs":["para_1176","para_1177","para_1178","para_1179","para_1180","para_1181","para_1182","para_1183","para_1184"]},{"title":"The majority contends that entering a preliminary","paragraphs":["para_1186","para_1187","para_1188","para_1189","para_1190","para_1191","para_1192","para_1193"]},{"title":"9 The potential whipsaw effect on employees would be ameliorated","paragraphs":["para_1195","para_1196","para_1197","para_1198"]},{"title":"Laborforce’s alleged labor-law violations that the Union is ineffectual and","paragraphs":["para_1200"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 39","paragraphs":["para_1202","para_1203","para_1204","para_1205"]},{"title":"(granting § 10(j) relief even where “more than two years have","paragraphs":["para_1207","para_1208","para_1209","para_1210","para_1211","para_1212"]},{"title":"For the foregoing reasons, I would find that the district","paragraphs":["para_1214","para_1215","para_1216","para_1217","para_1218","para_1219","para_1220","para_1221","para_1222"]},{"title":"III","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Though the majority does not reach the Director’s","paragraphs":["para_1225","para_1226","para_1227"]},{"title":"The district court began its analysis here by concluding","paragraphs":["para_1229","para_1230"]},{"title":"18–19, and I agree with that assessment. Here, a single CBA","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"40 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":["para_1233","para_1234","para_1235"]},{"title":"Director made a “strong” showing that she is likely to succeed","paragraphs":["para_1237","para_1238"]},{"title":"762–63 (7th Cir. 2020) (noting that likelihood of success for","paragraphs":["para_1240","para_1241"]},{"title":"The district court’s assessment of causation also was","paragraphs":["para_1243","para_1244"]},{"title":"Department, despite also actively soliciting and failing to","paragraphs":["para_1246"]},{"title":"Department. Acting on that petition, Laborforce signaled its","paragraphs":["para_1248","para_1249","para_1250"]},{"title":"Laborforce went ahead and withdrew recognition for","paragraphs":["para_1252","para_1253"]},{"title":"As the district court set forth, a causal relationship","paragraphs":["para_1255","para_1256"]},{"title":"(1984). The inquiry looks to (1) the time between the unfair","paragraphs":["para_1258","para_1259","para_1260","para_1261","para_1262","para_1263"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 41","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The district court erred at the first step of the causal","paragraphs":["para_1266","para_1267"]},{"title":"The district court pinned Laborforce’s unfair labor practice as","paragraphs":["para_1269","para_1270","para_1271"]},{"title":"803, 809 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he company was only free to","paragraphs":["para_1273","para_1274"]},{"title":"454, 457 (7th Cir. 1992) (noting that employers may not","paragraphs":["para_1276","para_1277","para_1278","para_1279","para_1280","para_1281","para_1282","para_1283","para_1284"]},{"title":"F.4th 759, 772 (7th Cir. 2021).10","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The district court also concluded that the employees","paragraphs":["para_1287","para_1288","para_1289","para_1290"]},{"title":"10 And as with irreparable harm, the district court did not address the","paragraphs":["para_1292","para_1293","para_1294","para_1295"]},{"title":"42 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":["para_1297","para_1298"]},{"title":"Laborforce unilaterally changed the conditions of","paragraphs":["para_1300","para_1301"]},{"title":"Department, may have “cause[d] [their] disaffection from the","paragraphs":["para_1303","para_1304","para_1305","para_1306","para_1307","para_1308","para_1309","para_1310","para_1311","para_1312"]},{"title":"Likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm","paragraphs":["para_1314","para_1315","para_1316","para_1317","para_1318","para_1319"]},{"title":"Laborforce’s unfair labor practices. Laborforce identifies no","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"11 The district court issued its opinion on September 22, 2025. On the","paragraphs":["para_1322","para_1323","para_1324","para_1325","para_1326","para_1327"]},{"title":"No. 25-3110 43","paragraphs":["para_1329","para_1330","para_1331","para_1332","para_1333"]},{"title":"83 F.3d at 1574 (citation modified); see also Am. Red Cross, 714","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"F.3d at 557 (“The interest at stake … is the public interest in","paragraphs":["para_1336","para_1337"]},{"title":"IV","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Starbucks does not erase our decades of § 10(j)","paragraphs":["para_1340","para_1341","para_1342","para_1343","para_1344","para_1345","para_1346","para_1347","para_1348","para_1349"]},{"title":"Nevertheless, the majority views Starbucks as having left a","paragraphs":["para_1351","para_1352"]},{"title":"(both qualitatively and quantitively) for irreparable harm in","paragraphs":["para_1354","para_1355","para_1356","para_1357","para_1358","para_1359"]},{"title":"44 No. 25-3110","paragraphs":["para_1361","para_1362","para_1363","para_1364","para_1365","para_1366","para_1367"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"In the","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"For the Seventh Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"____________________","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"ANGIE COWAN HAMADA, Regional Director of Region 13 of the","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the Na-","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"tional Labor Relations Board,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Petitioner-Appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"LABORFORCE, LLC, M&K EMPLOYEE SERVICES, and M&K TRUCK","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"CENTERS,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Respondents-Appellees.","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"____________________","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court for the","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"No. 1:25-cv-00541 — Virginia M. Kendall, Chief Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"____________________","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"ARGUED MAY 12, 2026 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 18, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"____________________","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Before EASTERBROOK, MALDONADO, and TAIBLESON, Cir-","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"cuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"TAIBLESON, Circuit Judge. In 2023 and 2024, Laborforce,","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"LLC received petitions from some of its employees requesting","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"decertification of their union. Laborforce obliged those re-","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"quests and then changed the employees’ compensation and","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"2 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"benefits to reflect their non-union status. In response, the un-","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"ion filed multiple charges with the National Labor Relations","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Board (“Board”), claiming that Laborforce had engaged in un-","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"fair labor practices prohibited by the National Labor Relations","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"Act (“NLRA”). Those charges initiated administrative pro-","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"ceedings within the Board to consider Laborforce’s alleged vi-","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"olations of the NLRA. While those administrative proceed-","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"ings were pending, the Board’s regional Director filed this ac-","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"tion in federal court, seeking a preliminary injunction pursu-","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"ant to § 10(j) of the NLRA in order to reinstate the union im-","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"mediately.","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"The district court declined to issue an injunction, and we","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"affirm. Section 10(j) injunctions are “extraordinary” remedies","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"that are “never awarded as of right.” Starbucks Corp. v. McKin-","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"ney, 602 U.S. 339, 345 (2024) (citation omitted). To justify relief","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"under § 10(j), the Director must satisfy the traditional four-","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"factor test for preliminary injunctions. The Director fails to do","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"so here, because she cannot demonstrate that irreparable","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"harm would result absent an injunction. Instead, the Director","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"points only to mine-run risks of harm present in many labor","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"disputes. There is nothing extraordinary about this case that","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"warrants relief under § 10(j).","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"I. Background","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"A.","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"The NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., protects employees’","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"rights to “self-organization,” to participate in “labor organi-","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"zations” and “bargain collectively,” and “to refrain from any","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"or all of such activities,” 29 U.S.C. § 157. The statute prohibits","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"both employers and unions from engaging in various unfair","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"labor practices, such as refusing to bargain collectively with","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 3","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"each other or discriminating between employees on the basis","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"of union membership. Id. § 158. The Board enforces that pro-","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"hibition. Id. § 160(a). The Board’s “authority kicks in when a","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"person files a charge with the agency alleging that an unfair","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"labor practice is afoot.” Glacier Nw., Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Team-","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"sters Loc. Union No. 174, 598 U.S. 771, 775 (2023). After investi-","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"gation, the Board may initiate a formal action against the of-","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"fending party by issuing an administrative complaint. 29","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"C.F.R. § 101.8.","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"The complaint triggers adjudicatory proceedings within","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"the agency: An administrative law judge (ALJ) holds a hear-","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"ing and recommends a decision, which is subject to review by","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"the Board. See id. §§ 101.10–12. If the parties do not take ex-","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"ception to the ALJ’s order, the ALJ’s recommended decision","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"becomes the decision of the Board. Id. §§ 101.11(b), 101.12(b).","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"But if the parties do file exceptions, the Board reviews the","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"ALJ’s recommendation and issues an order that may (or may","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"not) adopt the ALJ’s analysis and conclusion. Id. §§ 101.11(b),","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"101.12(a). The Board’s order, in turn, is subject to review in a","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"court of appeals, where the Board may seek to enforce its or-","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"der and an aggrieved party may seek judicial review. 29","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 160(e)–(f); see 29 C.F.R. § 101.14.","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"“Because the Board’s administrative proceedings take","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"years, Congress vested the Board with authority to seek a pre-","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"liminary injunction in federal court while the proceedings un-","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"fold.” Starbucks, 602 U.S. at 343. Specifically, § 10(j) of the","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"NLRA authorizes the Board “upon issuance of a complaint …","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"charging that any person has engaged in or is engaging in an","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"unfair labor practice, to petition [a] United States district court","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"… for appropriate temporary relief.” 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). That","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"provision is at issue here.","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"4 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"B.","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"M&K Truck Centers operates truck dealerships that ser-","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"vice and sell semi-tractors across several Midwestern states.","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"One of those dealerships is in Summit, Illinois. The Summit","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"dealership, like other M&K operations, leases its employees","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"from Laborforce and M&K Employee Services. (For purposes","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"of this appeal, the differences between these three corporate","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"entities are not significant, and we refer collectively to the rel-","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"evant employer here as “Laborforce.”)","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"Employees at the Summit dealership have been repre-","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"sented by Automobile Mechanics’ Local 701, International As-","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"since the 1950s. As relevant here, the most recent collective","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"bargaining agreement between Laborforce and the union","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"went into effect on October 1, 2020, and was supposed to last","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"until September 30, 2027. That agreement did not define the","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"“bargaining unit” of employees at the Summit dealership to","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"which it applied, but the agreement referenced employees in","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"both the Parts and Service Departments.1","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Laborforce employed Joe Loman in the Parts Department","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"at the Summit dealership. Loman served as a union steward,","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"representing other Parts Department employees as part of the","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"bargaining team. Around October of 2022, Loman became fed","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"up with the union and its “[i]mproper representation,” so he","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"started collecting signatures to decertify the union. By all ac-","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"counts, Loman acted unilaterally; Laborforce did not encour-","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"age, interfere with, or assist in the decertification process. In","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"July of 2023, Loman presented his decertification petition to","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"1 In layman’s terms, a bargaining unit is simply a group of employees","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"who are, or seek to be, represented by a labor union.","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 5","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"the general manager of the Summit dealership. The petition","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"was signed by 19 of the 31 Parts Department employees, but","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"none of the Service Department employees.","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"Laborforce responded quickly. Shortly after Loman pre-","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"sented his petition, Laborforce notified the union that it","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"would withdraw recognition as to Parts Department employ-","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"ees at midnight on September 30, 2023.2 Laborforce also","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"posted a memorandum to all Summit Parts Department em-","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"ployees, announcing that on October 1, they would receive a","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"“new payrate consistent with the payrate at non-union M&K","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"Truck Center facilities in the area,” a new insurance plan that","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"would “provide[] all of the same major benefits as your cur-","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"rent health plan” with “no co-pay,” and a new 401(k) plan","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"“with a company match of 3%.”","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"While awaiting the formal withdrawal date, Laborforce","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"filed a unit clarification petition with the Board to determine","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"which employees comprised the bargaining unit covered by","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"the collective bargaining agreement. Laborforce’s petition de-","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"scribed the existing unit as “All Parts and Service Department","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"Employees,” and it proposed to limit that unit to “All Service","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"Department Employees.” Laborforce explained that it sought","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"this clarification because the “Parts Department has de-","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"manded employer withdraw recognition of Union on their","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"2 Laborforce could not immediately withdraw recognition of the un-","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"ion because Loman’s decertification petition was presented within the first","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"three years of the collective bargaining agreement’s term, during which","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"time the union had a “conclusive presumption of majority support” and","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"decertification petitions were barred. Polycon Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 821 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"905, 907 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. NLRB, 517 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"781, 786 (1996)). Laborforce thus withdrew recognition as of the date that","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"the three-year bar would end.","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"6 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"behalf.” The Board denied Laborforce’s petition, stating that","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"“the Parts employee classification has historically been in-","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"cluded in the bargaining unit, and there is no evidence that","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"this classification has undergone recent changes in duties or","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"responsibilities” sufficient to justify a midterm clarification.","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"Notwithstanding the Board’s denial of Laborforce’s unit","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"clarification petition, Laborforce proceeded to withdraw un-","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"ion recognition with respect to Parts Department employees","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"at midnight on September 30, 2023. Consistent with its with-","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"drawal, Laborforce stopped responding to grievances from","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"the union, and it implemented new increased wage rates and","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"benefits packages for Parts Department employees.","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"But Loman was not finished with his decertification ef-","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"forts. A Board employee informed Loman that “in a typical","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"case,” he would need “to get the entire shop”—i.e., both the","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"Parts and Service Departments—to support decertification. So","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"Loman presented a second decertification petition in June of","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"2024. This time, the petition was signed by a combined major-","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"ity of employees in the Parts and Service Departments, 36 out","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"of 70 total. Laborforce again acted quickly, notifying the un-","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"ion that it was withdrawing recognition for both departments","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"effective immediately. And Laborforce posted a memoran-","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"dum to all Parts and Service Department employees, confirm-","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"ing that Laborforce would no longer recognize the union and","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"specifying pay and benefits changes.","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"C.","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"In response to these events, the union filed multiple","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"charges with the Board alleging that Laborforce had violated","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"the NLRA by engaging in unfair labor practices. The Board’s","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"regional Director then issued an administrative complaint","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 7","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"against Laborforce in June of 2024, alleging that Laborforce’s","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"first withdrawal of union recognition with respect to Parts De-","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"partment employees was unlawful because the first petition","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"was signed by only a minority of the bargaining unit. In Sep-","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"tember of 2024, the Director amended the complaint, claiming","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"that Laborforce’s second withdrawal of recognition for both","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"Parts and Service Department employees was also unlawful","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"because it was tainted by the earlier withdrawal. An ALJ for","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"the Board conducted an evidentiary hearing on these alleged","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"unfair labor practices in October of 2024.","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"From its very first charge filed in July of 2023 (when Lo-","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"man submitted his first decertification petition), the union re-","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"quested “immediate 10(j) injunctive relief.” But it was not un-","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"til January of 2025—after the ALJ hearing—that the Director","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"initiated this case by petitioning the district court for interim","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"injunctive relief under § 10(j). The Director sought an injunc-","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"tion requiring Laborforce to, among other things, recognize","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"and bargain with the union in good faith and to rescind uni-","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"lateral changes to the employees’ wages and benefits.","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"While the Director’s § 10(j) petition was pending in the dis-","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"trict court, the ALJ released her decision on the merits, finding","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"that Laborforce had engaged in multiple unfair labor prac-","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"tices. The ALJ determined that Laborforce’s first withdrawal","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"of union recognition for the Parts Department was unlawful","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"because the disaffection petition had not been signed by a ma-","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"jority of the bargaining unit. And even though the second pe-","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"tition cured that defect, the ALJ found that the second petition","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"had been tainted by the unremedied first withdrawal, cou-","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"pled with Laborforce’s unilateral, favorable changes to the","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"Parts Department’s wages and benefits that would tend to","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"“denigrate the Union.”","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"8 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"Four days later, the district court denied the Director’s pe-","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"tition for a § 10(j) injunction. The district judge found that the","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"Director had failed to establish irreparable harm, a likelihood","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"of success on the merits, or that an injunction was in the public","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"interest. Because the parties had not yet submitted the ALJ","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"opinion to the district judge, she issued her order without its","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"benefit. The parties declined the district judge’s invitation to","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"file a motion for reconsideration in view of the ALJ’s opinion,","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"and this appeal followed.","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"II. Discussion","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"The Director challenges the denial of her petition for a","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"§ 10(j) injunction. We review the district court’s ultimate deci-","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"sion for abuse of discretion, its underlying findings of fact for","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"clear error, and its legal conclusions de novo. K.C. v. Individual","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"Members of Med. Lic. Bd., 121 F.4th 604, 614 (7th Cir. 2024); Har-","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"rell ex rel. NLRB v. Am. Red Cross, Heart of Am. Blood Servs. Re-","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"gion, 714 F.3d 553, 556 (7th Cir. 2013).","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"In Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, the Supreme Court held","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"that the Director—like most ordinary plaintiffs—must meet","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"the traditional four-factor test to justify a preliminary injunc-","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"tion under § 10(j). 602 U.S. at 346, 348. Under that test, the Di-","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"rector “must make a clear showing” that she “is likely to suc-","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"ceed on the merits” of her unfair labor practices claim, that","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"“irreparable harm” will likely ensue “in the absence of pre-","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"liminary relief,” that “the balance of equities tips in [her] fa-","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"vor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 346","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"(quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"(2008)). Starbucks did not directly overrule our case law, as we","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"previously applied the same four-factor test. See id. at 345 (cit-","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"ing Bloedorn ex rel. NLRB v. Francisco Foods, Inc., 276 F.3d 270,","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"286 (7th Cir. 2001)). But the Supreme Court did emphasize","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 9","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"that like all preliminary injunctions, § 10(j) injunctions are","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"“extraordinary” remedies that are “never awarded as of","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"right.” Id. at 345 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 24).","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"The irreparable harm factor is dispositive in this case, and","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"so we begin (and almost end) there. We agree with the district","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"court that an injunction is unwarranted because the Director","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"has failed to meet the “threshold requirement” of showing","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"“irreparable harm absent an injunction.” Life Spine, Inc. v. Ae-","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"gis Spine, Inc., 8 F.4th 531, 545 (7th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"A.","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"To show irreparable harm, the Director must “(1) specifi-","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"cally identify the injury threatened by the alleged unfair labor","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"practice, (2) establish that the injury is likely to result absent","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"an injunction, and (3) explain why the Board’s … remedial","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"powers could not fix the injury after the fact.” Kerwin ex rel.","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"NLRB v. Trinity Health Grand Haven Hosp., 174 F.4th 942, 958","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"(6th Cir. 2026). The relevant injuries that may support a § 10(j)","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"injunction are those that defeat the rights protected by the","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"NLRA—including employees’ rights to “self-organization,”","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"to participate in “labor organizations” and “bargain collec-","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"tively,” and “the right to refrain from any or all of such activ-","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"ities.” 29 U.S.C. § 157; cf. Starbucks, 602 U.S. at 362 (Jackson, J.,","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"concurring in part and in the judgment) (irreparable harm in-","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"quiry focuses on “violation of labor rights”). Thus we con-","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"sider “whether, in the absence of immediate relief,” the injury","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"to those labor rights “flowing from the alleged violation can-","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"not be prevented or fully rectified by the final Board order.”","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"Am. Red Cross, 714 F.3d at 557.","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"10 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"1.","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"The Director has not made such a showing here. To","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"demonstrate irreparable harm, the Director relies on generic","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"claims about erosion of union support among employees and","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"deprivation of the benefits of collective bargaining and union","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"representation. For instance, the Director claims that “Labor-","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"force’s conduct has already dissipated Union support,” and","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"“the unit employees contemporaneously and irreparably suf-","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"fer the loss of the benefits of good-faith collective bargaining","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"and representation by their chosen Union.” But the Director","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"does not point to specific injuries beyond the risks of future","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"harm that, in the Director’s telling, non-unionized employees","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"generally face.","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"In these circumstances, the “employees’ lack of union rep-","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"resentation while awaiting the Board’s action is not enough to","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"make this a ‘serious and extraordinary’ case that requires in-","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"junctive relief.” McKinney ex rel. NLRB v. S. Bakeries, LLC, 786","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"F.3d 1119, 1125 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). That is true","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"for a few reasons.","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"First, if a union falling out of favor suffices to show irrep-","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"arable harm, then the irreparable-harm requirement will au-","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"tomatically be satisfied whenever the Director can show the","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"Board is likely to succeed on the merits of certain unfair labor","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"practices claims. Indeed, the Director explicitly embraces this","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"approach, arguing that the very presence of some unfair labor","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"practices, like “the failure to bargain in good faith, causes","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"likely irreparable injury.” But Starbucks says the opposite: Un-","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"like some other statutes, § 10(j) does not establish “a rebutta-","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"ble presumption of irreparable harm … upon a finding of like-","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"lihood of success on the merits.” 602 U.S. at 348 (alteration in","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"original) (citation omitted). The Director thus cannot “be","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 11","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"entitled to an injunction anytime collective bargaining is dis-","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"rupted in any way.” Trinity Health, 174 F.4th at 957. But that is","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"precisely what the Director asks for here.","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"Second, the facts of this case implicate not only employees’","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"rights to organize and bargain collectively, but also their right","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"“to refrain from any or all of such activities.” 29 U.S.C. § 157.","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"Before Laborforce undertook any alleged unfair labor prac-","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"tices, it received an employee-originated petition to decertify","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"the union. Laborforce’s response to that petition was to in-","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"crease wages and benefits for affected employees. The “objec-","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"tive evidence [thus] indicates the Union lacks majority sup-","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"port,” and Laborforce’s unilateral compensation and benefits","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"changes help to explain why. S. Bakeries, 786 F.3d at 1125. The","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"Director argues that an injunction would vindicate the Sum-","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"mit employees’ right to unionize. But on this record, an in-","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"junction might just as well defeat the employees’ right “to re-","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"frain” from unionizing. 29 U.S.C. § 157. When a § 10(j) injunc-","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"tion is as likely to defeat some employee rights as it is to vin-","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"dicate others, the Director cannot make the required showing","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"of irreparable harm. That is particularly clear here, given the","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"undisputed material benefits that Summit employees have","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"obtained since exercising their right to withdraw recognition","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"of the union. See Trinity Health, 174 F.4th at 957 (dismissing","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"director’s “generalizations” about union benefits when, in","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"“reality,” employer “began implementing pay raises shortly","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"after ditching the union”).","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"The dissent rejects this latter point, arguing that the","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"irreparable-harm analysis should focus only on harm to the","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"union and its organizing efforts, not to the employees directly.","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"See Diss. Op. at 28–31. Indeed, the dissent describes the Direc-","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"tor as essentially the union’s lawyer. But we can find no basis","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"12 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"in the NLRA’s text for that one-sided approach, and the dis-","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"sent points to none. The statute’s core rights-creating pro-","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"vision focuses on the rights of employees, not of unions. See 29","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 157 (“Employees shall have the right to self-organi-","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"zation, … to bargain collectively …, and shall also have the","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"right to refrain from any or all of such activities ….”). Con-","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"sistent with that focus, the statute forbids both employers and","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"unions from engaging in unfair labor practices that would vi-","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"olate these statutorily protected rights. Id. § 158. Section 10(j),","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"in turn, empowers the Director to seek a preliminary injunc-","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"tion when “any person has engaged in or is engaging in an","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"unfair labor practice”—whether the offending actor is an em-","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"ployer or a union. Id. § 160(j). The statute therefore does not","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"protect unions over and above everyone else; if anything, it","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"puts employee rights first. See generally Chamber of Commerce","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60, 65 (2008) (NLRA “str[ikes] a balance of","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"protection, prohibition, and laissez-faire” with respect to la-","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"bor issues). Given that statutory text, we see no justification","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"for limiting our irreparable-harm analysis to the union’s in-","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"terests alone. That is particularly clear in cases like this one,","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"where prioritizing the union’s interests risks defeating the","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"employees’ rights and worsening the conditions of their em-","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"ployment.","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"The evidence here—of genuine employee disaffection","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"with the union and improved employee compensation after","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"decertification—also distinguishes this case from our § 10(j)","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"precedents finding irreparable harm. See, e.g., Hamada v. La-","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"borforce, LLC, No. 25 C 541, 2025 WL 2696410, at *6 (N.D. Ill.","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"Sep. 22, 2025) (district court finding below that the “Union has","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"been out of favor from a majority of employees for over a","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"year,” and that in the meantime “the employees are currently","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"making more than they were making under the Union","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 13","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"contract and have expanded benefits”). By and large, our","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"prior decisions have considered labor disputes involving bad-","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"faith employer misconduct, such as an employer taking af-","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"firmative steps to cripple a union or harm unionized employ-","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"ees. See, e.g., NLRB v. Electro-Voice, Inc., 83 F.3d 1559, 1571–73","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"(7th Cir. 1996) (reversing district court’s denial of injunction","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"where employer attempted to thwart union formation, in-","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"cluding by threatening plant closure, interviewing employees","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"about union activity, and firing union organizers); Francisco","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"Foods, 276 F.3d at 298–300 (reversing district court’s denial of","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"injunction where employer refused to hire employees from","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"predecessor company to avoid bargaining with their union","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"representative); Lineback ex rel. NLRB v. Spurlino Materials,","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"LLC, 546 F.3d 491, 495–98, 501–02 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"grant of injunction where employer campaigned heavily to","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"discourage and warn employees against electing union repre-","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"sentation and allegedly discriminated against union organiz-","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"ers); Lineback ex rel. NLRB v. Irving Ready-Mix Inc., 653 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"566, 568–69, 573 (7th Cir. 2011) (affirming grant of injunction","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"where employer refused to recognize union after collective","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"bargaining agreement expired despite lack of evidence that","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"union lost majority support and also decreased employee","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"benefits). The employers’ practices in those cases directly in-","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"jured employees, making it easier for the Director to show ir-","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"reparable harm. But the Director points to no such evidence","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"here.3 And while—as the dissent notes—those cases focused","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"3 The dissent—but not the Director—suggests that a “mysterious 15%","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"shrinkage of the bargaining unit” between 2023 and 2024 may be part of","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"the irreparable-harm analysis. Diss. Op. at 31 n.5. But there is no evidence","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"in the record about this diminution, other than the 2023 and 2024 decerti-","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"fication vote counts from which the dissent apparently calculates this fig-","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"ure.","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"14 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"on injury to a union in considering irreparable harm, none","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"holds that injury to a union is the only cognizable harm. See","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"Diss. Op. at 28–30.","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"To the extent any of our cases suggests that irreparable","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"harm can be inferred whenever a union’s influence wanes,","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"that inference is now foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s re-","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"cent decision in Starbucks, which we consider today for the","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"first time. As described above, that inference would rob the","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"irreparable-harm requirement of independent force in many","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"§ 10(j) cases. Starbucks therefore forbids it: Section 10(j)’s “text","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"bears no resemblance to the language that Congress has em-","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"ployed when it has altered the normal equitable rules,” and it","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"contains no language that would relieve the Director of the","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"usual burden of showing irreparable harm. 602 U.S. at 348","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"(contrasting § 10(j) with Lanham Act provision, 15 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"§ 1116(a), which does permit “a rebuttable presumption of ir-","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"reparable harm” upon “a finding of likelihood of success on","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"the merits”) (citation omitted). The Director is not entitled to","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"a thumb on the scale. Instead, like an ordinary plaintiff seek-","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"ing a preliminary injunction, the Director must actually","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"demonstrate specific irreparable harm to the labor rights pro-","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"tected by the NLRA.4","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"4 To the extent the Second Circuit’s decision in Poor ex rel. NLRB v.","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"Parking Systems Plus, Inc., 162 F.4th 335 (2d Cir. 2025), suggests otherwise,","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"we disagree. See id. at 351 (indicating that irreparable harm may be based","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"on generic claims of “impairment of the employees’ collective bargaining","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"rights and the unionization process”). Instead, we agree with the Sixth","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"Circuit that “with the Supreme Court’s Starbucks decision now our guid-","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"ing light,” we may not follow cases like Parking Systems Plus “that would","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"artificially lighten the Director’s evidentiary burden.” Kerwin v. Trinity","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"Health Grand Haven Hosp., 174 F.4th 942, 955 (6th Cir. 2026); see also McKin-","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"ney ex rel. NLRB v. S. Bakeries, LLC, 786 F.3d 1119, 1125 (8th Cir. 2015). To","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 15","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"Rather than follow Starbucks, the dissent claims to be fol-","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"lowing Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 678 (1944),","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"and NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969), arguing","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"that those cases “rejected” the approach we take here. Diss.","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"Op. at 33, 35. But while Starbucks concerns the precise issue","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"before us, neither Medo nor Gissel involved § 10(j) or consid-","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"erations of irreparable harm. Medo—which predated § 10(j)’s","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"very existence—considered only the merits of an unfair labor","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"practices claim, which is a question we expressly do not reach","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"here. 321 U.S. at 679–80; see Labor-Management Relations Act","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"of 1947, Pub. L. No. 80–101, § 101, 61 Stat. 136, 149 (enacting","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"§ 10(j)). As Starbucks explained, “irreparable harm” is “not","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"part of [an] unfair-labor-practice claim” and is therefore","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"“completely irrelevant to the Board’s adjudicatory authority,”","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"which is all that was at issue in Medo. 602 U.S. at 351. And","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"Gissel is even further afield. That case involved an employer’s","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"duty “to recognize a union that bases its claim to representa-","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"tive status solely on the possession of union authorization","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"cards.” 395 U.S. at 579. In considering that question, the Court","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"made only a passing mention of § 10(j) injunctions when dif-","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"ferentiating § 10(j)’s “last resort” remedy from the Board’s","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"other powers. Id. at 611–12.5","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"be clear, though, we do not hold that every cognizable irreparable harm","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"must be “extraordinary”—that is the dissent’s formulation, not our own.","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"Diss. Op. at 27. But these harms must be real and specific injuries to stat-","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"utorily protected interests, rather than generic claims about the lost bene-","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"fits of unionization.","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"5 The dissent also cites Franks Bros. Co. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 702, 705","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"(1944), for the proposition that “a § 10(j) remedy ‘does not involve any in-","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"justice to employees who may wish to substitute for the particular union","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"some other bargaining agent or arrangement.’” Diss. Op. at 36. But Franks,","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"like Medo, predated § 10(j)’s existence. Franks was not considering a § 10(j)","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"16 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"Our irreparable-harm inquiry is instead guided by the","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"NLRA’s text, Starbucks, and the many cases instructing that a","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"“preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary and drastic rem-","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"edy.’” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689 (2008). The Director’s","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"lackluster showing of irreparable harm does not meet the","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"standards set by statute or Supreme Court precedent.","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"2.","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"Were there any doubt about the irreparable-harm issue in","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"this case, the Director’s “delay in seeking an injunction seals","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"the deal.” Trinity Health, 174 F.4th at 958. While the passage of","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"time alone does not bar a finding of irreparable harm, it is sig-","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"nificant if the alleged harm has already “occurred and the par-","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"ties cannot be returned to the status quo or if the Board’s final","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"order is likely to be as effective as an order for interim relief.”","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"S. Bakeries, 786 F.3d at 1125 (citation omitted). That is the case","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"here.","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"The parties disagree about how to count the months of de-","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"lay before the Director sought an injunction: Did the Director","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"wait eighteen months (counting from the first decertification","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"petition and the union’s first charge), or merely seven (count-","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"ing from the Board’s issuance of its first complaint)? But it","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"doesn’t matter how we count; either way, it is too late. Union","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"injunction, but instead a final Board order issued after administrative pro-","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"ceedings were complete. See 321 U.S. at 702–04. Again, as Starbucks ex-","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"plained, the Board’s internal adjudications of unfair labor practices do not","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"involve the same considerations of irreparable harm that inform a federal","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"court’s preliminary-injunction analysis. See 602 U.S. at 351. It is one thing","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"for the Board to order relief after the completion of its full administrative","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"proceedings; it is quite another for a federal court to intervene early in the","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"process through the extraordinary equitable remedy of a preliminary in-","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"junction.","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 17","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"support has been waning at the Summit dealership since at","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"least July of 2023, when the first decertification petition was","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"submitted. Since June of 2024, both Parts and Service Depart-","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"ment employees have been working without union represen-","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"tation and for increased compensation. The Board has been","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"aware of these events from the outset. Yet the Director only","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"sought a § 10(j) injunction in January of 2025.","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"In the meantime, the regular administrative process chugs","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"along. The Director filed a formal complaint in June of 2024,","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"shortly after the second decertification petition. The ALJ con-","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"ducted a hearing in October of 2024 and issued a thorough","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"recommended decision in September of 2025. The matter is","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"now fully briefed before the Board, and all that remains is for","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"the Board to decide it.","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"Given this timeline, it is hard to see how the Director acted","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"with the requisite “sense of urgency” in seeking a § 10(j) in-","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"junction. Trinity Health, 174 F.4th at 959 (citation omitted). The","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"Director asks us to grant “an extraordinary remedy” to jump","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"ahead of the administrative process, id. at 955, in order to re-","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"dress a labor dispute that began three years ago and has now","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"stabilized. On this record, imposing a § 10(j) injunction would","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"not simply be “a temporary return to the status quo,” Diss.","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"Op. at 35; it would whipsaw employees who long ago voted","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"to decertify their union and would risk destabilizing their em-","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"ployment conditions. Thus whether we call it seven months","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"or eighteen, the Director’s delay in seeking an injunction rein-","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"forces our conclusion that extraordinary interim relief is not","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"necessary to preserve the efficacy of the Board’s ultimate or-","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"der.","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"The Director argues that the upcoming expiration of the","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"collective bargaining agreement (in September of 2027)","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"18 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"renders the situation time-sensitive, because the union needs","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"“to be reinstated now so that it may regain its legitimate level","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"of support in advance of that bargaining.” But that is not a","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"sufficient reason to impose an extraordinary preliminary in-","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"junction and “accelerate[] what at this point only may be the","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"ultimate remedy.” S. Bakeries, 786 F.3d at 1125. As it stands, a","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"majority of the employees of the Parts and Service Depart-","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"ments collectively voted to decertify the union. Whether an","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"injunction issues now or when the Board’s final decision is is-","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"sued, “the Union w[ill] have to perform largely the same work","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"to rebuild support from employees.” Id. Because the Board","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"has “very potent remedial powers,” id. (citation omitted), that","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"are “far from ‘fragile,’” Trinity Health, 174 F.4th at 954 (citation","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"omitted), we see no compelling reason to jump ahead of the","paragraph_id":"para_551"},{"text":"normal administrative process.","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"B.","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"Like the district court, we cannot find irreparable harm on","paragraph_id":"para_554"},{"text":"this record, and that conclusion forecloses a § 10(j) injunction.","paragraph_id":"para_555"},{"text":"The district judge also considered other preliminary-injunc-","paragraph_id":"para_556"},{"text":"tion factors, including likelihood of success on the merits. We","paragraph_id":"para_557"},{"text":"refrain from doing so here, reluctant to prejudge the case that","paragraph_id":"para_558"},{"text":"may ultimately come to us seeking review of the Board’s final","paragraph_id":"para_559"},{"text":"decision. But we briefly pause to correct one error in the dis-","paragraph_id":"para_560"},{"text":"trict court’s analysis of the merits.","paragraph_id":"para_561"},{"text":"Recall that the first decertification petition was signed only","paragraph_id":"para_562"},{"text":"by a majority of the Parts Department employees—not a ma-","paragraph_id":"para_563"},{"text":"jority of the Parts and Service Department employees to-","paragraph_id":"para_564"},{"text":"gether. The Director contends that the petition was defective","paragraph_id":"para_565"},{"text":"because it was not signed by a majority of the bargaining unit","paragraph_id":"para_566"},{"text":"as a whole. The propriety of Laborforce’s first withdrawal of","paragraph_id":"para_567"},{"text":"union recognition thus turns, in part, on the scope of the","paragraph_id":"para_568"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 19","paragraph_id":"para_569"},{"text":"bargaining unit. But the district judge believed that she could","paragraph_id":"para_570"},{"text":"not determine “whether the Parts and Service Departments","paragraph_id":"para_571"},{"text":"constitute a single bargaining unit” because “district courts","paragraph_id":"para_572"},{"text":"do not have jurisdiction to opine on questions of representa-","paragraph_id":"para_573"},{"text":"tions and determinations of appropriate bargaining author-","paragraph_id":"para_574"},{"text":"ity.” Hamada, 2025 WL 2696410, at *4.","paragraph_id":"para_575"},{"text":"That was a mistake. It is true that, in considering a § 10(j)","paragraph_id":"para_576"},{"text":"petition, a district court’s assessment of the merits does not","paragraph_id":"para_577"},{"text":"bind the ALJ or the Board in its consideration of the same","paragraph_id":"para_578"},{"text":"questions. See Starbucks, 602 U.S. at 350–51 (“[N]o matter how","paragraph_id":"para_579"},{"text":"searching the district court’s merits inquiry or what evidence","paragraph_id":"para_580"},{"text":"it considers or credits, the Board remains free to reach its own","paragraph_id":"para_581"},{"text":"legal conclusions and develop its own record in its adminis-","paragraph_id":"para_582"},{"text":"trative proceedings.”). But the district court has jurisdiction to","paragraph_id":"para_583"},{"text":"consider these questions in adjudicating a § 10(j) petition, and","paragraph_id":"para_584"},{"text":"it need not hesitate to exercise that jurisdiction in assessing","paragraph_id":"para_585"},{"text":"the Board’s likelihood of success on the merits.6","paragraph_id":"para_586"},{"text":"* * *","paragraph_id":"para_587"},{"text":"Because the Director failed to establish irreparable harm,","paragraph_id":"para_588"},{"text":"the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to","paragraph_id":"para_589"},{"text":"grant a § 10(j) injunction. The judgment is accordingly","paragraph_id":"para_590"},{"text":"AFFIRMED.","paragraph_id":"para_591"},{"text":"6 Because we are not reviewing the Board’s final decision on the mer-","paragraph_id":"para_592"},{"text":"its, we do not reach Laborforce’s claims that the Board’s adjudicative sys-","paragraph_id":"para_593"},{"text":"tem is unconstitutional. We understand Laborforce to be preserving these","paragraph_id":"para_594"},{"text":"claims for potential future litigation, and it has done so.","paragraph_id":"para_595"},{"text":"20 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_596"},{"text":"MALDONADO, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Although Starbucks","paragraph_id":"para_597"},{"text":"Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339 (2024), changed several","paragraph_id":"para_598"},{"text":"circuits’ approach to addressing § 10(j) petitions, it did not","paragraph_id":"para_599"},{"text":"change ours. We have long applied traditional equitable","paragraph_id":"para_600"},{"text":"factors in assessing § 10(j) petitions. The Supreme Court","paragraph_id":"para_601"},{"text":"approved our approach, Starbucks, 602 U.S. at 345 (citing","paragraph_id":"para_602"},{"text":"favorably to Bloedorn v. Francisco Foods, Inc., 276 F.3d 270 (7th","paragraph_id":"para_603"},{"text":"Cir. 2001)), and that endorsement leaves untouched decades","paragraph_id":"para_604"},{"text":"of our precedent setting forth what constitutes irreparable","paragraph_id":"para_605"},{"text":"harm—namely, “diminution of union support,” Francisco","paragraph_id":"para_606"},{"text":"Foods, 276 F.3d at 299 (citation modified). Now, as before, the","paragraph_id":"para_607"},{"text":"crux of our irreparable harm inquiry is “the labor effort,” id.","paragraph_id":"para_608"},{"text":"at 286, so a preliminary injunction is appropriate where the","paragraph_id":"para_609"},{"text":"Board’s “ability to remedy a violation of labor rights will","paragraph_id":"para_610"},{"text":"likely be precluded absent interim relief,” Starbucks, 602 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_611"},{"text":"at 362 (Jackson, J., concurring in part, concurring in the","paragraph_id":"para_612"},{"text":"judgment, and dissenting in part).","paragraph_id":"para_613"},{"text":"Compelled by its expansive view of Starbucks, the majority","paragraph_id":"para_614"},{"text":"has carved a new path, making irreparable harm all but","paragraph_id":"para_615"},{"text":"impossible to prove in the absence of “extraordinary”","paragraph_id":"para_616"},{"text":"circumstances. But we have long held that “no rule of law","paragraph_id":"para_617"},{"text":"limits injunctive relief [under § 10(j)] to ‘serious and","paragraph_id":"para_618"},{"text":"extraordinary circumstances.’” Kinney v. Pioneer Press, 881","paragraph_id":"para_619"},{"text":"F.2d 485, 493 (7th Cir. 1989). And focusing on harm to","paragraph_id":"para_620"},{"text":"individual employees’ wages and benefits permits an","paragraph_id":"para_621"},{"text":"employer to defeat a § 10(j) petition by paying employees","paragraph_id":"para_622"},{"text":"more to induce their defection from the union, “caus[ing] the","paragraph_id":"para_623"},{"text":"majority’s support for the union to crumble by committing","paragraph_id":"para_624"},{"text":"unfair labor practices.” Outboard Marine Corp. v. NLRB, Nos.","paragraph_id":"para_625"},{"text":"92-2733 & 92-3171, 1993 WL 410875, at *10, enforced, 9 F.3d 113","paragraph_id":"para_626"},{"text":"(7th Cir. 1993) (citing Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321","paragraph_id":"para_627"},{"text":"U.S. 678, 687 (1944)). In fact, the majority’s novel irreparable","paragraph_id":"para_628"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 21","paragraph_id":"para_629"},{"text":"harm analysis does exactly what Starbucks cautions against:","paragraph_id":"para_630"},{"text":"“reading § 10(j) to supplant the traditional equitable","paragraph_id":"para_631"},{"text":"principles governing injunctions.” Starbucks, 602 U.S. at 347.","paragraph_id":"para_632"},{"text":"If the Board ultimately concludes that Laborforce sought","paragraph_id":"para_633"},{"text":"to unlawfully divide and conquer the bargaining unit, a","paragraph_id":"para_634"},{"text":"bargaining order issued years later likely cannot remediate","paragraph_id":"para_635"},{"text":"the damage. At the time of the second decertification petition,","paragraph_id":"para_636"},{"text":"48.6% of the bargaining unit did not vote to decertify the","paragraph_id":"para_637"},{"text":"Union, but if more time passes, and the Union remains","paragraph_id":"para_638"},{"text":"impotent, those employees who may have supported the","paragraph_id":"para_639"},{"text":"Union might thin in their ranks. The stakes are especially high","paragraph_id":"para_640"},{"text":"here: the Union has been the sole bargaining representative of","paragraph_id":"para_641"},{"text":"Summit Facility employees for more than 70 years, and","paragraph_id":"para_642"},{"text":"already, between the first and second decertification petitions,","paragraph_id":"para_643"},{"text":"the bargaining unit at the Facility has shrunk by fifteen","paragraph_id":"para_644"},{"text":"percent.1 Further, the collective bargaining agreement","paragraph_id":"para_645"},{"text":"negotiated in 2020 by the Union and Laborforce is set to expire","paragraph_id":"para_646"},{"text":"in 2027, so the opportunity to negotiate with a strong, well-","paragraph_id":"para_647"},{"text":"supported Union may pass before the Board awards any","paragraph_id":"para_648"},{"text":"relief.","paragraph_id":"para_649"},{"text":"The Director has clearly shown that the labor effort at the","paragraph_id":"para_650"},{"text":"Summit Facility faces irreparable harm in the absence of","paragraph_id":"para_651"},{"text":"§ 10(j) relief. And when I apply our long-established","paragraph_id":"para_652"},{"text":"irreparable harm jurisprudence to the record here, I can only","paragraph_id":"para_653"},{"text":"conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it","paragraph_id":"para_654"},{"text":"denied preliminary injunctive relief. I respectfully dissent.","paragraph_id":"para_655"},{"text":"1 As the Director noted in the district court and on appeal, the","paragraph_id":"para_656"},{"text":"bargaining unit shrank from 82 to 70 employees between the first and","paragraph_id":"para_657"},{"text":"second decertification petitions. App. Dkt. 15 at 5, 8; Dist. Ct. Dkt. 15 at 4","paragraph_id":"para_658"},{"text":"n.6.","paragraph_id":"para_659"},{"text":"22 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_660"},{"text":"I","paragraph_id":"para_661"},{"text":"Before diving into the majority’s analysis, it is worth","paragraph_id":"para_662"},{"text":"emphasizing that § 10(j) petitions for preliminary injunctive","paragraph_id":"para_663"},{"text":"relief are rare. The Board only petitions for § 10(j) relief after","paragraph_id":"para_664"},{"text":"a thorough vetting process and not anytime there is a credible","paragraph_id":"para_665"},{"text":"alleged violation of the labor law.2 The majority today repeats","paragraph_id":"para_666"},{"text":"the Sixth Circuit’s hyperbole in Kerwin ex rel. NLRB v. Trinity","paragraph_id":"para_667"},{"text":"Health Grand Haven Hospital, 174 F.4th 942 (6th Cir. 2026), that","paragraph_id":"para_668"},{"text":"the Director might seek § 10(j) injunctions “anytime collective","paragraph_id":"para_669"},{"text":"bargaining is disrupted in any way.” Maj. Op. at 11 (quoting","paragraph_id":"para_670"},{"text":"Trinity Health, 174 F.4th at 957).","paragraph_id":"para_671"},{"text":"But the Director does not demand equitable relief","paragraph_id":"para_672"},{"text":"whenever union support is eroded. “Section 10(j) … never","paragraph_id":"para_673"},{"text":"requires the Board to sue.” Pioneer Press, 881 F.2d at 489.","paragraph_id":"para_674"},{"text":"Rather, when the Director seeks § 10(j) relief, she does so in an","paragraph_id":"para_675"},{"text":"adjudicatory capacity, after a thorough investigation, and","paragraph_id":"para_676"},{"text":"within the finite set of circumstances under which Congress,","paragraph_id":"para_677"},{"text":"via the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), authorizes","paragraph_id":"para_678"},{"text":"such action. See Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177, 193","paragraph_id":"para_679"},{"text":"(1941) (“The Board … is the agency of Congress for","paragraph_id":"para_680"},{"text":"translating into concreteness the purpose of safeguarding and","paragraph_id":"para_681"},{"text":"encouraging the right of self-organization.”).","paragraph_id":"para_682"},{"text":"“Time is usually of the essence [in labor disputes.]” Pioneer","paragraph_id":"para_683"},{"text":"Press, 881 F.2d at 488 (quoting S. Rep. No. 80–105, 80th Cong.,","paragraph_id":"para_684"},{"text":"1st Sess. 8 (1947)). As the majority notes, the Board’s","paragraph_id":"para_685"},{"text":"administrative proceedings can take years, Maj. Op. at 3, so","paragraph_id":"para_686"},{"text":"2 29 U.S.C. § 160(a), (j); NLRB, Off. of the Gen. Couns., Section 10(j)","paragraph_id":"para_687"},{"text":"Manual: User's Guide § 5.5, at 11–14 (2002),","paragraph_id":"para_688"},{"text":"https://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/basic-page/node-","paragraph_id":"para_689"},{"text":"1727/redacted_10j_manual_5.0_reduced.pdf.","paragraph_id":"para_690"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 23","paragraph_id":"para_691"},{"text":"Congress “added to the Board’s arsenal” the discretionary","paragraph_id":"para_692"},{"text":"authority to seek preliminary injunctive relief under § 10(j),","paragraph_id":"para_693"},{"text":"Pioneer Press, 881 F.2d at 488. This power serves “as a means","paragraph_id":"para_694"},{"text":"of preserving or restoring the status quo as it existed before","paragraph_id":"para_695"},{"text":"the onset of unfair labor practices,” while the Board","paragraph_id":"para_696"},{"text":"adjudicates the claims in the first instance. NLRB v. Electro-","paragraph_id":"para_697"},{"text":"Voice, Inc., 83 F.3d 1559, 1575 (7th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted);","paragraph_id":"para_698"},{"text":"see Starbucks, 602 U.S. at 358-89 (Jackson, J.) (citing Electro-","paragraph_id":"para_699"},{"text":"Voice, 83 F.3d at 1575) (“Congress designed § 10(j) … so that","paragraph_id":"para_700"},{"text":"the Board’s ultimate ability to remedy an unfair labor practice","paragraph_id":"para_701"},{"text":"would not be impeded.”). Thus, the remedy provided by a","paragraph_id":"para_702"},{"text":"grant of § 10(j) relief is definitionally “temporary,” and here it","paragraph_id":"para_703"},{"text":"would impose on the parties no more than what they","paragraph_id":"para_704"},{"text":"originally bargained for before the alleged labor-law","paragraph_id":"para_705"},{"text":"violations. See 29 U.S.C. § 160(j).","paragraph_id":"para_706"},{"text":"The Board’s “screening process for determining when to","paragraph_id":"para_707"},{"text":"seek a § 10(j) injunction is exceedingly rigorous,” involving","paragraph_id":"para_708"},{"text":"“an extensive, and strikingly deliberative, standard operating","paragraph_id":"para_709"},{"text":"procedure.” Starbucks, 602 U.S. at 359, 363 (Jackson, J.)","paragraph_id":"para_710"},{"text":"(detailing four-stage deliberative process before § 10(j)","paragraph_id":"para_711"},{"text":"petition can be filed in federal court). At oral argument,","paragraph_id":"para_712"},{"text":"counsel for the Director referenced the care taken when","paragraph_id":"para_713"},{"text":"seeking § 10(j) relief, noting that “part of the process is to","paragraph_id":"para_714"},{"text":"gather evidence when a charge is filed. We collect position","paragraph_id":"para_715"},{"text":"statements, sometimes affidavits, we speak with","paragraph_id":"para_716"},{"text":"witnesses … before we decide there is merit in a case,” to","paragraph_id":"para_717"},{"text":"warrant the filing of a complaint, and thereafter, a request for","paragraph_id":"para_718"},{"text":"approval for a § 10(j) petition from the General Counsel and","paragraph_id":"para_719"},{"text":"then the Board. This process therefore “can understandably","paragraph_id":"para_720"},{"text":"take several months.” Poor ex rel. NLRB v. Parking Sys. Plus,","paragraph_id":"para_721"},{"text":"Inc., 162 F.4th 335, 353 (2d Cir. 2025).","paragraph_id":"para_722"},{"text":"24 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_723"},{"text":"Data from the Board reveals that the vast majority of","paragraph_id":"para_724"},{"text":"charges alleging violations of the NLRA do not contain the","paragraph_id":"para_725"},{"text":"factual predicates to warrant filing a petition for § 10(j) relief.","paragraph_id":"para_726"},{"text":"See Starbucks, 602 U.S. at 363 (Jackson, J.). For instance, “[o]f","paragraph_id":"para_727"},{"text":"the roughly 20,000 unfair labor practice charges filed [in 2023],","paragraph_id":"para_728"},{"text":"the Board authorized the filing of a petition for § 10(j) relief","paragraph_id":"para_729"},{"text":"only 14 times.” Id. at 363. And in 2025, when the Board","paragraph_id":"para_730"},{"text":"petitioned the district court here for § 10(j) relief, the Board","paragraph_id":"para_731"},{"text":"authorized only seven § 10(j) petitions. See NLRB, 10(j)","paragraph_id":"para_732"},{"text":"Injunctions, https://www.nlrb.gov/what-we-do/investigate-","paragraph_id":"para_733"},{"text":"charges/10j-injunctions (last visited September 3, 2026).","paragraph_id":"para_734"},{"text":"Given that the Board spends months applying its expertise","paragraph_id":"para_735"},{"text":"in assessing a case, and then authorizes a petition only in","paragraph_id":"para_736"},{"text":"roughly 0.07% of cases, the majority misjudges this case as","paragraph_id":"para_737"},{"text":"one of routine, easily remediated labor violations. If the issues","paragraph_id":"para_738"},{"text":"raised by the Director here were harms that “non-unionized","paragraph_id":"para_739"},{"text":"employees generally face,” Maj. Op. at 10, would we not see","paragraph_id":"para_740"},{"text":"the Board filing far more § 10(j) petitions? The majority’s","paragraph_id":"para_741"},{"text":"floodgates argument, Maj. Op. at 10–11 (quoting Trinity","paragraph_id":"para_742"},{"text":"Health, 174 F.4th at 957), is simply not supported by the","paragraph_id":"para_743"},{"text":"Board’s reported data.","paragraph_id":"para_744"},{"text":"I note the Board’s selectivity in filing § 10(j) petitions not","paragraph_id":"para_745"},{"text":"to suggest that the courts should substitute the Board’s","paragraph_id":"para_746"},{"text":"screening process for our own independent application of the","paragraph_id":"para_747"},{"text":"traditional equitable factors set forth in Winter v. Natural","paragraph_id":"para_748"},{"text":"Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). See Starbucks,","paragraph_id":"para_749"},{"text":"602 U.S. at 350–351. Instead, I mean to emphasize that when","paragraph_id":"para_750"},{"text":"the Board approves the filing of a petition for § 10(j) relief, the","paragraph_id":"para_751"},{"text":"Board acts not as a mere party movant in favor of the union","paragraph_id":"para_752"},{"text":"or the employer, but rather as the first-level adjudicator of the","paragraph_id":"para_753"},{"text":"merits of the alleged labor dispute. 29 U.S.C. § 160(a); NLRB","paragraph_id":"para_754"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 25","paragraph_id":"para_755"},{"text":"v. United Food & Com. Workers Union, 484 U.S. 112, 117–18","paragraph_id":"para_756"},{"text":"(1987). While we are not bound by and do not defer to the","paragraph_id":"para_757"},{"text":"Board’s reasoning, we (who are not labor experts) do","paragraph_id":"para_758"},{"text":"ourselves a disservice if we put blinders on and ignore the","paragraph_id":"para_759"},{"text":"Board’s critical gatekeeping function in the filing of § 10(j)","paragraph_id":"para_760"},{"text":"petitions.","paragraph_id":"para_761"},{"text":"II","paragraph_id":"para_762"},{"text":"With a more fulsome understanding of the context in","paragraph_id":"para_763"},{"text":"which § 10(j) petitions make their way to this court, I turn to","paragraph_id":"para_764"},{"text":"why a preliminary injunction was appropriate and necessary.","paragraph_id":"para_765"},{"text":"Even with the appropriate deference to the district court, its","paragraph_id":"para_766"},{"text":"ultimate decision was an abuse of discretion. I begin, as the","paragraph_id":"para_767"},{"text":"majority opinion does, with irreparable harm.","paragraph_id":"para_768"},{"text":"A","paragraph_id":"para_769"},{"text":"The majority opinion hangs on the notion that preliminary","paragraph_id":"para_770"},{"text":"injunctive relief under § 10(j) is an “‘extraordinary’ equitable","paragraph_id":"para_771"},{"text":"remedy,” Starbucks, 602 U.S. at 345 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_772"},{"text":"at 24), inappropriate for “mine-run” harms. See Maj. Op. at 2,","paragraph_id":"para_773"},{"text":"9, 16–18. But this reasoning collapses concepts, taking an","paragraph_id":"para_774"},{"text":"adjective used to describe the unique character of the remedy","paragraph_id":"para_775"},{"text":"requested and redeploying it as a requirement for the","paragraph_id":"para_776"},{"text":"predicate facts. In so holding, the majority “supplant[s] the","paragraph_id":"para_777"},{"text":"traditional equitable principles governing injunctions,”","paragraph_id":"para_778"},{"text":"Starbucks, 602 U.S. at 347, by instead requiring the Director to","paragraph_id":"para_779"},{"text":"show that the case is “extraordinary.”3 See Maj. Op. at 2, 10.","paragraph_id":"para_780"},{"text":"3 As a term of art, “extraordinary” described the courts of equity,","paragraph_id":"para_781"},{"text":"contrasted with the “ordinary” courts of law. 3 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE,","paragraph_id":"para_782"},{"text":"COMMENTARIES 47 (1768). Early twentieth century Supreme Court","paragraph_id":"para_783"},{"text":"jurisprudence maintained the same distinction. See Ownbey v. Morgan, 256","paragraph_id":"para_784"},{"text":"U.S. 94, 110 (1921) (avoiding hardship “in the interest of substantial","paragraph_id":"para_785"},{"text":"26 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_786"},{"text":"In Pioneer Press, we rejected the standard now set forth by","paragraph_id":"para_787"},{"text":"the majority. We held that the district court’s “belief that","paragraph_id":"para_788"},{"text":"section 10(j) is reserved for more serious and extraordinary","paragraph_id":"para_789"},{"text":"circumstances than presented here” was incorrect because","paragraph_id":"para_790"},{"text":"“no rule of law limits injunctive relief to serious and","paragraph_id":"para_791"},{"text":"extraordinary circumstances.” Pioneer Press, 881 F.2d at 493","paragraph_id":"para_792"},{"text":"(citation modified).","paragraph_id":"para_793"},{"text":"A remedy can be “extraordinary” in that categorical","paragraph_id":"para_794"},{"text":"sense—appropriate only where a remedy at law does not","paragraph_id":"para_795"},{"text":"suffice—and still issue routinely wherever its prerequisites","paragraph_id":"para_796"},{"text":"are met in ordinary course. For instance, “courts have granted","paragraph_id":"para_797"},{"text":"injunctive relief upon a finding of infringement in the vast","paragraph_id":"para_798"},{"text":"majority of patent cases,” which “is not surprising, given the","paragraph_id":"para_799"},{"text":"difficulty of protecting a right to exclude through monetary","paragraph_id":"para_800"},{"text":"remedies … a difficulty that often implicates the first two","paragraph_id":"para_801"},{"text":"factors of the traditional four-factor test.” eBay Inc. v.","paragraph_id":"para_802"},{"text":"MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 395 (2006) (Roberts, C.J.,","paragraph_id":"para_803"},{"text":"concurring). At the same time, “[t]his historical practice” of","paragraph_id":"para_804"},{"text":"finding irreparable harm “in the vast majority of patent cases”","paragraph_id":"para_805"},{"text":"“does not entitle a patentee to a permanent injunction or","paragraph_id":"para_806"},{"text":"justify a general rule that such injunctions should issue.” Id. So","paragraph_id":"para_807"},{"text":"too here: Starbucks forbids reading the text of § 10(j) to","paragraph_id":"para_808"},{"text":"presume any irreparable harm, but in those rare §10(j)","paragraph_id":"para_809"},{"text":"petitions the Board brings, it just might be typical that the","paragraph_id":"para_810"},{"text":"Director will be able to make an independent showing of","paragraph_id":"para_811"},{"text":"irreparable harm to the labor effort under the traditional test.","paragraph_id":"para_812"},{"text":"justice”—as when a court grants temporary injunctive relief—“is a","paragraph_id":"para_813"},{"text":"recognized extraordinary jurisdiction of common-law courts,","paragraph_id":"para_814"},{"text":"distinguishable from their ordinary or formal jurisdiction.”).","paragraph_id":"para_815"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 27","paragraph_id":"para_816"},{"text":"The majority’s bootstrapping of “serious and","paragraph_id":"para_817"},{"text":"extraordinary circumstances” onto irreparable harm, to create","paragraph_id":"para_818"},{"text":"a heightened standard under which a case must be","paragraph_id":"para_819"},{"text":"exceptionally severe to warrant § 10(j) relief—for example, a","paragraph_id":"para_820"},{"text":"case replete with obvious “bad-faith employer misconduct,”","paragraph_id":"para_821"},{"text":"Maj. Op. at 13—is therefore misplaced. Irreparable harm is","paragraph_id":"para_822"},{"text":"harm that “legal remedies are inadequate to cure” and","paragraph_id":"para_823"},{"text":"nothing more. Life Spine, Inc. v. Aegis Spine, Inc., 8 F.4th 531,","paragraph_id":"para_824"},{"text":"545 (7th Cir. 2021). Insofar as Starbucks cautions against","paragraph_id":"para_825"},{"text":"“jettison[ing] the normal equitable rules,” 602 U.S. at 347, the","paragraph_id":"para_826"},{"text":"majority goes too far by imposing an “extraordinary”","paragraph_id":"para_827"},{"text":"circumstances test onto the irreparable harm prong of the","paragraph_id":"para_828"},{"text":"Winter factors. See Maj. Op. at 10 (citing McKinney ex rel. NLRB","paragraph_id":"para_829"},{"text":"v. S. Bakeries, LLC, 786 F.3d 1119, 1125 (8th Cir. 2015)).","paragraph_id":"para_830"},{"text":"B","paragraph_id":"para_831"},{"text":"Further morphing the equitable inquiry, the majority says","paragraph_id":"para_832"},{"text":"there is no irreparable harm to the Board where employees","paragraph_id":"para_833"},{"text":"benefit from an employer’s alleged unfair labor practices or","paragraph_id":"para_834"},{"text":"eventually choose to decertify the union following an","paragraph_id":"para_835"},{"text":"allegedly unfair labor practice. Maj. Op. at 11. But the","paragraph_id":"para_836"},{"text":"Supreme Court has rejected this buy-off-the-employee","paragraph_id":"para_837"},{"text":"approach to the NLRA. See NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_838"},{"text":"575, 580 n.1 (1969); Medo, 321 U.S. at 679, 687.4 First, it misses","paragraph_id":"para_839"},{"text":"4 The majority disavows reliance on Gissel or Medo because the cases","paragraph_id":"para_840"},{"text":"do not concern § 10(j) petitions. Maj. Op. at 15. But both are NLRA","paragraph_id":"para_841"},{"text":"decisions that discuss the propriety of Board orders where there were","paragraph_id":"para_842"},{"text":"similar employee-inducing unfair labor practices at play that could harm","paragraph_id":"para_843"},{"text":"the union effort. Gissel, 395 U.S. at 580 n.1; Medo, 321 U.S. at 679, 687. So","paragraph_id":"para_844"},{"text":"those cases are generally instructive to our predictive effort in assessing","paragraph_id":"para_845"},{"text":"the propriety of §10(j) relief, including the likelihood of success and the","paragraph_id":"para_846"},{"text":"risk of irreparable harm. The majority, citing Starbucks, says that","paragraph_id":"para_847"},{"text":"irreparable harm is “completely irrelevant” to an unfair-labor-practice","paragraph_id":"para_848"},{"text":"28 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_849"},{"text":"the focus of irreparable harm in the labor context, which is","paragraph_id":"para_850"},{"text":"aimed at the union’s “labor effort.” Electro-Voice, 83 F.3d at","paragraph_id":"para_851"},{"text":"1567. Second, it creates a safe harbor for an employer to defeat","paragraph_id":"para_852"},{"text":"§ 10(j) relief so long as employees also receive higher wages.","paragraph_id":"para_853"},{"text":"And third, it misconstrues a § 10(j) injunction as undermining","paragraph_id":"para_854"},{"text":"the right to “refrain from” organizing or collective bargaining","paragraph_id":"para_855"},{"text":"under 29 U.S.C. § 157, when a preliminary injunction merely","paragraph_id":"para_856"},{"text":"preserves the status quo before the onset of any unfair labor","paragraph_id":"para_857"},{"text":"practice.","paragraph_id":"para_858"},{"text":"To start, the majority incorrectly replaces harm to the","paragraph_id":"para_859"},{"text":"“labor effort”—that is, harm to the union’s “ab[ility] to","paragraph_id":"para_860"},{"text":"organize and represent … employees effectively if and when","paragraph_id":"para_861"},{"text":"the Board orders the company to commence bargaining”—","paragraph_id":"para_862"},{"text":"with harm to individual employees’ material benefits. See","paragraph_id":"para_863"},{"text":"Francisco Foods, 276 F.3d at 286, 299; Parking Sys., 162 F.4th at","paragraph_id":"para_864"},{"text":"351 (recognizing that Starbucks did not change the standard","paragraph_id":"para_865"},{"text":"for “what constitutes harm justifying a grant of equitable","paragraph_id":"para_866"},{"text":"relief” in the § 10(j) context). Specifically, the majority finds no","paragraph_id":"para_867"},{"text":"irreparable harm here because after Laborforce withdrew","paragraph_id":"para_868"},{"text":"recognition of the Union, it raised employees’ wages,","paragraph_id":"para_869"},{"text":"claim. Maj. Op. at 15. But the majority’s distinction is ultimately semantic:","paragraph_id":"para_870"},{"text":"for instance, in Gissel, whether or not the Supreme Court used the term","paragraph_id":"para_871"},{"text":"“irreparable harm,” it was trying to avoid “damage” to the labor effort","paragraph_id":"para_872"},{"text":"when it remarked that “[t]he damage will have been done, and perhaps","paragraph_id":"para_873"},{"text":"the only fair way to effectuate employee rights is to re-establish the","paragraph_id":"para_874"},{"text":"conditions as they existed before the employer’s unlawful campaign.”","paragraph_id":"para_875"},{"text":"Gissel, 395 U.S. at 612 (emphasis added). And Medo too articulates why","paragraph_id":"para_876"},{"text":"unlawful wage increases still may be harmful, especially to the labor","paragraph_id":"para_877"},{"text":"effort. 321 U.S. at 686–87. Although at a later procedural juncture, Gissel","paragraph_id":"para_878"},{"text":"and Medo offer useful insights into how the Supreme Court has viewed","paragraph_id":"para_879"},{"text":"harm to the labor effort in enforcing Board bargaining and cease-and-","paragraph_id":"para_880"},{"text":"desist orders.","paragraph_id":"para_881"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 29","paragraph_id":"para_882"},{"text":"provided a cheaper health-insurance plan, and matched their","paragraph_id":"para_883"},{"text":"401(k)s. Maj. Op. at 5, 11.","paragraph_id":"para_884"},{"text":"But it is the Director, not the employees, who files the","paragraph_id":"para_885"},{"text":"petition for § 10(j) relief and who must establish irreparable","paragraph_id":"para_886"},{"text":"harm. She may do so by showing that “the harm to","paragraph_id":"para_887"},{"text":"organizational efforts that will occur while the Board","paragraph_id":"para_888"},{"text":"considers the case is so great as to permit persons violating","paragraph_id":"para_889"},{"text":"the Act to accomplish their unlawful objectives, rendering the","paragraph_id":"para_890"},{"text":"Board’s remedial powers ineffectual.” Electro-Voice, 83 F.3d at","paragraph_id":"para_891"},{"text":"1567. After all, “[t]he idea underpinning 10(j) is that a district","paragraph_id":"para_892"},{"text":"court can issue a speedy preliminary injunction to protect a","paragraph_id":"para_893"},{"text":"union where the effective enforcement of the NLRA is","paragraph_id":"para_894"},{"text":"threatened by the delays inherent in the NLRB dispute","paragraph_id":"para_895"},{"text":"resolution process.” Ohr ex rel. NLRB v. Latino Express, Inc., 776","paragraph_id":"para_896"},{"text":"F.3d 469, 472 (7th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added) (citing Lineback","paragraph_id":"para_897"},{"text":"ex rel. NLRB v. Irving Ready-Mix, Inc., 653 F.3d 566, 570 (7th","paragraph_id":"para_898"},{"text":"Cir. 2011)).","paragraph_id":"para_899"},{"text":"“The goal [of § 10(j)] is to protect the integrity of the","paragraph_id":"para_900"},{"text":"collective bargaining process ….” Irving Ready-Mix, 653 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_901"},{"text":"at 570 (affirming district court’s entry of preliminary","paragraph_id":"para_902"},{"text":"injunction as “clearly correct” where it found irreparable","paragraph_id":"para_903"},{"text":"harm based on “employer’s practices [that were] ‘enormously","paragraph_id":"para_904"},{"text":"destructive’ to the union’s organizational efforts”). Thus, “the","paragraph_id":"para_905"},{"text":"harm [the Director] must show is not injury to the specific","paragraph_id":"para_906"},{"text":"employees, as [the majority] suggests, but to the unionization","paragraph_id":"para_907"},{"text":"process,” such that the Board’s delayed issuance of a","paragraph_id":"para_908"},{"text":"bargaining order might be rendered futile. Parking Sys., 162","paragraph_id":"para_909"},{"text":"F.4th at 351 (citation modified); cf. Trinity Health, 174 F.4th at","paragraph_id":"para_910"},{"text":"953–54 (“[W]e will not grant [the Director] an injunction","paragraph_id":"para_911"},{"text":"unless she also demonstrates that the Board is likely to suffer","paragraph_id":"para_912"},{"text":"‘irreparable harm’ in the absence of injunctive relief.”)","paragraph_id":"para_913"},{"text":"30 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_914"},{"text":"(emphasis added)); Harrell ex rel. NLRB v. Am. Red Cross, Heart","paragraph_id":"para_915"},{"text":"of Am. Blood Servs. Region, 714 F.3d 553, 557 (7th Cir. 2013)","paragraph_id":"para_916"},{"text":"(holding that irreparable harm “strike[s] at the heart of the","paragraph_id":"para_917"},{"text":"Union’s ability to effectively represent the unit employees”","paragraph_id":"para_918"},{"text":"(citation omitted)); Aguayo ex rel. NLRB v. Tomco Carburetor","paragraph_id":"para_919"},{"text":"Co., 853 F.2d 744, 750 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[T]he predominant","paragraph_id":"para_920"},{"text":"focus under section 10(j) is the harm to the bargaining process,","paragraph_id":"para_921"},{"text":"not to individual employees.”), overruled on other grounds by","paragraph_id":"para_922"},{"text":"Miller ex rel. NLRB v. Cal. Pac. Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 449, 457 (9th","paragraph_id":"para_923"},{"text":"Cir. 1994).","paragraph_id":"para_924"},{"text":"Laborforce acknowledged as much. In its principal brief,","paragraph_id":"para_925"},{"text":"Laborforce discussed the potential effect of an injunction on","paragraph_id":"para_926"},{"text":"the employees’ wages under the factors about the balance of","paragraph_id":"para_927"},{"text":"equities and public interest, not irreparable harm. Likewise,","paragraph_id":"para_928"},{"text":"the district court correctly assessed “what the Laborforce","paragraph_id":"para_929"},{"text":"employees want” as affecting the public interest, not as an","paragraph_id":"para_930"},{"text":"issue affecting the Director’s showing of irreparable harm.","paragraph_id":"para_931"},{"text":"The majority responds that nothing “in the NLRA’s text”","paragraph_id":"para_932"},{"text":"supports this long-held focus on the labor effort. True, both","paragraph_id":"para_933"},{"text":"employers and unions can engage in unfair labor practices,","paragraph_id":"para_934"},{"text":"but here the Board seeks an injunction because of unfair labor","paragraph_id":"para_935"},{"text":"practices allegedly committed by an employer to induce","paragraph_id":"para_936"},{"text":"decertification of the Union. The Supreme Court has long","paragraph_id":"para_937"},{"text":"recognized that “the legislative policy embodied in the NLRA","paragraph_id":"para_938"},{"text":"is aimed at safeguarding, first and foremost, workers’ rights","paragraph_id":"para_939"},{"text":"to join unions and to engage in collective bargaining.” Epic","paragraph_id":"para_940"},{"text":"Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497, 521 (2018) (citation omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_941"},{"text":"So here, the Board seeks to enforce the NLRA’s rules of play","paragraph_id":"para_942"},{"text":"regarding decertification of the Union. Thus, the majority’s","paragraph_id":"para_943"},{"text":"focus on the impact of the alleged unfair labor practices on","paragraph_id":"para_944"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 31","paragraph_id":"para_945"},{"text":"individual employees instead of the passage of time on the","paragraph_id":"para_946"},{"text":"Board’s authority to remedy those practices is incorrect.","paragraph_id":"para_947"},{"text":"The majority also insists that these articulated harms are","paragraph_id":"para_948"},{"text":"“generic claims about the lost benefits of unionization” rather","paragraph_id":"para_949"},{"text":"than “real and specific injuries.” Maj. Op. at 14–15 n.4. But it","paragraph_id":"para_950"},{"text":"is not possible to offer a real and specific account of the","paragraph_id":"para_951"},{"text":"hypothetical, counterfactual world in which Laborforce did","paragraph_id":"para_952"},{"text":"not allegedly commit unfair labor practices. See Trinity Health,","paragraph_id":"para_953"},{"text":"174 F.4th at 955 (“To be sure, every court resolving a","paragraph_id":"para_954"},{"text":"preliminary injunction motion must inevitably make","paragraph_id":"para_955"},{"text":"reasonable predictions about future harm based on existing","paragraph_id":"para_956"},{"text":"evidence.”); see also Hooks ex rel. NLRB v. Nexstar Broad., Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_957"},{"text":"54 F.4th 1101, 1116 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Frankl v. HTH","paragraph_id":"para_958"},{"text":"Corp., 650 F.3d 1334, 1363 (9th Cir. 2011)) (distinguishing","paragraph_id":"para_959"},{"text":"“between an impermissible presumption of irreparable","paragraph_id":"para_960"},{"text":"harm” and “a permissible inference regarding the likely","paragraph_id":"para_961"},{"text":"effects of that violation” (citation modified)).","paragraph_id":"para_962"},{"text":"Second, the majority creates a “safe harbor” from","paragraph_id":"para_963"},{"text":"temporary injunctive relief where an employer","paragraph_id":"para_964"},{"text":"simultaneously engages in unlawful labor practices while","paragraph_id":"para_965"},{"text":"increasing wages and benefits. The majority contends that","paragraph_id":"para_966"},{"text":"granting a § 10(j) injunction then would harm employees","paragraph_id":"para_967"},{"text":"who, as a result of Laborforce’s alleged labor-law violations,","paragraph_id":"para_968"},{"text":"enjoy increased wages and benefits. Maj. Op. at 11.5 But this","paragraph_id":"para_969"},{"text":"5 In any event, the effect on Laborforce’s employees is a mixed bag.","paragraph_id":"para_970"},{"text":"While the majority focuses on increased wages and benefits (i.e., the 401(k)","paragraph_id":"para_971"},{"text":"match and lower-cost health insurance) provided to the employees, a","paragraph_id":"para_972"},{"text":"collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) not only sets wage rates but also","paragraph_id":"para_973"},{"text":"generally provides robust health insurance benefits, pension benefits, and","paragraph_id":"para_974"},{"text":"lay-off and termination protections. Employees no doubt benefit from","paragraph_id":"para_975"},{"text":"increased wages and 401(k) matches, but they also benefit from the","paragraph_id":"para_976"},{"text":"32 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_977"},{"text":"strategy is contrary to Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_978"},{"text":"precedent. The Supreme Court has long made clear that an","paragraph_id":"para_979"},{"text":"employer cannot shirk its duty to bargain with a union","paragraph_id":"para_980"},{"text":"because, as a result of the employer’s alleged labor-law","paragraph_id":"para_981"},{"text":"violations, union support has waned. See Medo, 321 U.S. at","paragraph_id":"para_982"},{"text":"687. So “[a]n employer … cannot cause the majority’s support","paragraph_id":"para_983"},{"text":"for the union to crumble by committing unfair labor","paragraph_id":"para_984"},{"text":"practices” and then rely on that lack of majority support to","paragraph_id":"para_985"},{"text":"preclude § 10(j) relief. Outboard Marine, 1993 WL 410875, at","paragraph_id":"para_986"},{"text":"*10, enforced, 9 F.3d 113.","paragraph_id":"para_987"},{"text":"In Medo, the Supreme Court explained that the NLRA’s","paragraph_id":"para_988"},{"text":"protection of the collective bargaining process “may not be","paragraph_id":"para_989"},{"text":"ignored by the employer, even though the employees","paragraph_id":"para_990"},{"text":"consent … at least where the employer is in a position to","paragraph_id":"para_991"},{"text":"secure any advantage from the [unfair labor] practices.” 321","paragraph_id":"para_992"},{"text":"U.S. at 687. There, employees told the employer that “they","paragraph_id":"para_993"},{"text":"were dissatisfied with the union and would abandon it if their","paragraph_id":"para_994"},{"text":"wages were increased.” Id. at 679. The employer then offered","paragraph_id":"para_995"},{"text":"stability and security provided by a multi-year CBA that, by design, an","paragraph_id":"para_996"},{"text":"employer cannot change on a whim. How employees value any complete","paragraph_id":"para_997"},{"text":"employment package (i.e., short term and “unsecured” wage increases","paragraph_id":"para_998"},{"text":"compared to longer term stability provided through contractual","paragraph_id":"para_999"},{"text":"protections) likely varies among employees. In an ideal scenario, a union","paragraph_id":"para_1000"},{"text":"listens to its members and negotiates a CBA that values its members’","paragraph_id":"para_1001"},{"text":"needs and priorities. Perhaps that did not happen here, leading to","paragraph_id":"para_1002"},{"text":"discontent by about half of the Union’s members, but it is not for us to","paragraph_id":"para_1003"},{"text":"weigh in on whether the employees have benefited from decertification.","paragraph_id":"para_1004"},{"text":"And there are hints in the record that the narrative is not as","paragraph_id":"para_1005"},{"text":"straightforward as the majority suggests. For instance, the Service","paragraph_id":"para_1006"},{"text":"Department employees remain on the Union’s health insurance plan after","paragraph_id":"para_1007"},{"text":"decertification, not Laborforce’s, suggesting that the Union’s plan may","paragraph_id":"para_1008"},{"text":"provide superior health benefits. And there is the mysterious 15%","paragraph_id":"para_1009"},{"text":"shrinkage of the bargaining unit workforce, unexplained in the record.","paragraph_id":"para_1010"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 33","paragraph_id":"para_1011"},{"text":"higher wages to the union members without negotiating with","paragraph_id":"para_1012"},{"text":"the union, thereby cultivating the employees’ disillusionment","paragraph_id":"para_1013"},{"text":"with the union. Id. Thereafter, the employer refused to","paragraph_id":"para_1014"},{"text":"bargain with or even recognize the union. Id. Sound familiar?","paragraph_id":"para_1015"},{"text":"The Board charged the employer with unfair labor practices,","paragraph_id":"para_1016"},{"text":"finding that the employer had “interfere[ed] with its","paragraph_id":"para_1017"},{"text":"employees in the exercise of their rights to bargain","paragraph_id":"para_1018"},{"text":"collectively,” and the Supreme Court concluded that “[t]here","paragraph_id":"para_1019"},{"text":"could be no more obvious way of interfering with these rights","paragraph_id":"para_1020"},{"text":"of employees than by grants of wage increases upon the","paragraph_id":"para_1021"},{"text":"understanding that they would leave the union in return.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_1022"},{"text":"at 680, 686.","paragraph_id":"para_1023"},{"text":"The Supreme Court also rejected the employer’s argument","paragraph_id":"para_1024"},{"text":"“that it would be equally an unfair labor practice to refuse the","paragraph_id":"para_1025"},{"text":"wage increases as to grant them, for that would influence the","paragraph_id":"para_1026"},{"text":"employees to stay in the union, instead of abandoning it.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_1027"},{"text":"at 686. It held that “either consequence, as well as any","paragraph_id":"para_1028"},{"text":"violation of the [NLRA],” could have been avoided had the","paragraph_id":"para_1029"},{"text":"employer simply bargained properly, “as is its statutory","paragraph_id":"para_1030"},{"text":"duty.” Id. Medo makes clear that an employer “cannot, as","paragraph_id":"para_1031"},{"text":"justification for its refusal to bargain with the union, set up","paragraph_id":"para_1032"},{"text":"the defection of union members which it had induced by","paragraph_id":"para_1033"},{"text":"unfair labor practices, even though the result was that the","paragraph_id":"para_1034"},{"text":"union no longer had the support of a majority.” Id. at 687; see","paragraph_id":"para_1035"},{"text":"also Texaco, Inc. v. NLRB, 436 F.2d 520, 524 (7th Cir. 1971)","paragraph_id":"para_1036"},{"text":"(holding that “the promise of benefits such as wage increases”","paragraph_id":"para_1037"},{"text":"to union-represented employees harms the collective","paragraph_id":"para_1038"},{"text":"bargaining process as well as the Board’s remedial authority","paragraph_id":"para_1039"},{"text":"“whether or not the employees or the employer initiate the","paragraph_id":"para_1040"},{"text":"suggestion.”).","paragraph_id":"para_1041"},{"text":"34 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_1042"},{"text":"The majority now blesses the theory that the Supreme","paragraph_id":"para_1043"},{"text":"Court rejected in Medo. Maj. Op. at 11. The majority notes that","paragraph_id":"para_1044"},{"text":"Laborforce “received an employee-originated petition to","paragraph_id":"para_1045"},{"text":"decertify the union,” and “Laborforce’s response to that","paragraph_id":"para_1046"},{"text":"petition was to increase wages and benefits for affected","paragraph_id":"para_1047"},{"text":"employees,” namely the minority of the bargaining unit that","paragraph_id":"para_1048"},{"text":"wanted out. Maj. Op. at 11. As a result, the majority contends","paragraph_id":"para_1049"},{"text":"that the Director cannot make a showing of irreparable harm","paragraph_id":"para_1050"},{"text":"“given the undisputed material benefits that Summit","paragraph_id":"para_1051"},{"text":"employees have obtained since exercising their right to","paragraph_id":"para_1052"},{"text":"withdraw recognition of the union.”6 Maj. Op. at 11. That is,","paragraph_id":"para_1053"},{"text":"in the majority’s view, these benefits show that Laborforce did","paragraph_id":"para_1054"},{"text":"not engage in “bad-faith employer misconduct.” Maj. Op. at","paragraph_id":"para_1055"},{"text":"13. But this analysis critically omits that Loman, for his first","paragraph_id":"para_1056"},{"text":"decertification effort, actively lobbied the Parts and Service","paragraph_id":"para_1057"},{"text":"Departments yet received no signatures from the 51","paragraph_id":"para_1058"},{"text":"employees in the Service Department. Only by allegedly","paragraph_id":"para_1059"},{"text":"engaging in a textbook, impermissible divide-and-conquer","paragraph_id":"para_1060"},{"text":"strategy did Laborforce succeed in systematically fracturing a","paragraph_id":"para_1061"},{"text":"union that has represented employees for 70 years.","paragraph_id":"para_1062"},{"text":"The majority’s approach permits an employer to make the","paragraph_id":"para_1063"},{"text":"product of its own unfair labor practice a defense against","paragraph_id":"para_1064"},{"text":"preliminary injunctive relief by invoking the “right to","paragraph_id":"para_1065"},{"text":"6 Notably, the majority’s only support for this contention is Trinity","paragraph_id":"para_1066"},{"text":"Health, a split Sixth Circuit decision, with Judge Boggs dissenting, that","paragraph_id":"para_1067"},{"text":"rectified jurisprudential issues unique to the Sixth Circuit. Trinity Health","paragraph_id":"para_1068"},{"text":"also provided no support from caselaw or the NLRA for its “decision to","paragraph_id":"para_1069"},{"text":"decline the Director's invitation to infer irreparable harm” where an","paragraph_id":"para_1070"},{"text":"employer “offer[s] a better or different combination of perks to forestall","paragraph_id":"para_1071"},{"text":"union intervention, leaving workers at least as well off as with a union.”","paragraph_id":"para_1072"},{"text":"Trinity Health, 174 F.4th at 957.","paragraph_id":"para_1073"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 35","paragraph_id":"para_1074"},{"text":"refrain.” Ultimately the same employer strategy that the","paragraph_id":"para_1075"},{"text":"majority relies on to preclude a finding of irreparable harm","paragraph_id":"para_1076"},{"text":"constitutes the very “vice that Medo sought to avoid”—","paragraph_id":"para_1077"},{"text":"namely, “the practice of undermining the authority of the","paragraph_id":"para_1078"},{"text":"union’s bargaining representatives” by increasing the wages","paragraph_id":"para_1079"},{"text":"of employees who agree to abandon their union. NLRB v. Gen.","paragraph_id":"para_1080"},{"text":"Elec. Co., 418 F.2d 736, 755 (2d Cir. 1969). To find no","paragraph_id":"para_1081"},{"text":"irreparable harm here because some Summit Facility","paragraph_id":"para_1082"},{"text":"employees are now being paid more not only runs afoul of","paragraph_id":"para_1083"},{"text":"Medo, but rewards Laborforce for unfair labor practices that","paragraph_id":"para_1084"},{"text":"an ALJ has found violated the NLRA.","paragraph_id":"para_1085"},{"text":"Third, the majority’s concern with employees’ right to","paragraph_id":"para_1086"},{"text":"refrain from collective bargaining under 29 U.S.C. § 157 also","paragraph_id":"para_1087"},{"text":"misunderstands the limited, status-quo-preservation purpose","paragraph_id":"para_1088"},{"text":"of § 10(j) injunctive relief. See Electro-Voice, 83 F.3d at 1575.","paragraph_id":"para_1089"},{"text":"Departing from our circuit’s precedent, the majority contends","paragraph_id":"para_1090"},{"text":"that “[w]hen a § 10(j) injunction is as likely to defeat some","paragraph_id":"para_1091"},{"text":"employee rights as it is to vindicate others, the Director cannot","paragraph_id":"para_1092"},{"text":"make the required showing of irreparable harm.” Maj. Op. at","paragraph_id":"para_1093"},{"text":"11. But the Supreme Court rejected the majority’s proposed","paragraph_id":"para_1094"},{"text":"standard in Gissel. 395 U.S. at 612 n.33; see also id. at 613","paragraph_id":"para_1095"},{"text":"(“There is, after all, nothing permanent in a bargaining","paragraph_id":"para_1096"},{"text":"order ….”). Imposition of a temporary return to the status quo","paragraph_id":"para_1097"},{"text":"ex ante does not impede the rights of employees who wish to","paragraph_id":"para_1098"},{"text":"refrain from collective bargaining, and who still may defeat","paragraph_id":"para_1099"},{"text":"the Union through a decertification process that does not run","paragraph_id":"para_1100"},{"text":"afoul of the NLRA.","paragraph_id":"para_1101"},{"text":"If, after the period of status-quo preservation under § 10(j),","paragraph_id":"para_1102"},{"text":"the Board ultimately decides that Laborforce’s withdrawal of","paragraph_id":"para_1103"},{"text":"Union recognition was lawful, then those employees who","paragraph_id":"para_1104"},{"text":"have exercised their right to refrain from collective bargaining","paragraph_id":"para_1105"},{"text":"36 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_1106"},{"text":"by signing one of the two decertification petitions will be","paragraph_id":"para_1107"},{"text":"vindicated. See id. at 613. That is, a § 10(j) remedy “does not","paragraph_id":"para_1108"},{"text":"involve any injustice to employees who may wish to","paragraph_id":"para_1109"},{"text":"substitute for the particular union some other bargaining","paragraph_id":"para_1110"},{"text":"agent or arrangement” because such a remedy is merely a","paragraph_id":"para_1111"},{"text":"temporary return to conditions prior to the alleged labor","paragraph_id":"para_1112"},{"text":"violations, and “is not intended to fix a permanent bargaining","paragraph_id":"para_1113"},{"text":"relationship without regard to new situations that may","paragraph_id":"para_1114"},{"text":"develop.” Franks Bros. Co. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 702, 705 (1944).7","paragraph_id":"para_1115"},{"text":"In fact, as collective bargaining resumes, any effect of this","paragraph_id":"para_1116"},{"text":"reset “will be minimal at best” because “there ‘is every reason","paragraph_id":"para_1117"},{"text":"for the union to negotiate a contract that will satisfy the","paragraph_id":"para_1118"},{"text":"majority, for the union will surely realize that it must win the","paragraph_id":"para_1119"},{"text":"support of the employees, in the face of a hostile employer, in","paragraph_id":"para_1120"},{"text":"order to survive the threat of a decertification election after a","paragraph_id":"para_1121"},{"text":"year has passed.’” Gissel, 395 U.S. at 612, n.33 (quoting Derek","paragraph_id":"para_1122"},{"text":"C. Bok, The Regulation of Campaign Tactics in Representation","paragraph_id":"para_1123"},{"text":"Elections Under the National Labor Relations Act, 78 HARV. L.","paragraph_id":"para_1124"},{"text":"REV. 38, 135 (1964)).","paragraph_id":"para_1125"},{"text":"In assessing the Director’s showing of irreparable harm,","paragraph_id":"para_1126"},{"text":"the district court did not discuss irreparable harm to the labor","paragraph_id":"para_1127"},{"text":"effort. To be sure, the Director raised in the district court","paragraph_id":"para_1128"},{"text":"several such harms: the difficulty of re-gaining bargaining","paragraph_id":"para_1129"},{"text":"power, the diminution of support for the Union, the","paragraph_id":"para_1130"},{"text":"subsequent inability for the Union to represent and organize","paragraph_id":"para_1131"},{"text":"7 Like with Medo and Gissel, the majority distinguishes Franks as","paragraph_id":"para_1132"},{"text":"predating the existence of § 10(j). Maj. Op. at 15–16 n.5. True, Franks does","paragraph_id":"para_1133"},{"text":"not discuss “irreparable harm,” but Franks discusses whether employees","paragraph_id":"para_1134"},{"text":"are harmed at all by a bargaining order. 321 U.S. at 705. Franks therefore","paragraph_id":"para_1135"},{"text":"rejects the majority’s view of the countervailing harm to employees who","paragraph_id":"para_1136"},{"text":"wish to refrain.","paragraph_id":"para_1137"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 37","paragraph_id":"para_1138"},{"text":"employees, and the interim loss of non-monetary benefits","paragraph_id":"para_1139"},{"text":"secured by the CBA.8 The district court’s failure “to address","paragraph_id":"para_1140"},{"text":"all the relevant arguments” alone is an abuse of discretion.","paragraph_id":"para_1141"},{"text":"Dewitt v. Corizon, Inc., 760 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2014).","paragraph_id":"para_1142"},{"text":"C","paragraph_id":"para_1143"},{"text":"The district court instead concluded that the Director","paragraph_id":"para_1144"},{"text":"made no showing of irreparable harm because she “delayed","paragraph_id":"para_1145"},{"text":"significantly in seeking the injunction.” The majority also","paragraph_id":"para_1146"},{"text":"discusses this delay, though it does not go so far as to endorse","paragraph_id":"para_1147"},{"text":"the district court’s decision to treat it as virtually dispositive.","paragraph_id":"para_1148"},{"text":"As a threshold matter, while “delay is a factor that may be","paragraph_id":"para_1149"},{"text":"considered, … it is not particularly probative; the question is","paragraph_id":"para_1150"},{"text":"whether interim relief is necessary to restore the parties to the","paragraph_id":"para_1151"},{"text":"status quo.” Lineback v. Spurlino Materials, LLC, 546 F.3d 491,","paragraph_id":"para_1152"},{"text":"501 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Gottfried v. Frankel, 818 F.2d 485, 495","paragraph_id":"para_1153"},{"text":"(6th Cir. 1987)).","paragraph_id":"para_1154"},{"text":"In any event, the majority mistakenly appears to measure","paragraph_id":"para_1155"},{"text":"the delay from “at least July of 2023, when the first","paragraph_id":"para_1156"},{"text":"decertification petition was submitted” to January 16, 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_1157"},{"text":"when the Director petitioned for § 10(j) relief, because “[t]he","paragraph_id":"para_1158"},{"text":"Board has been aware of these events from the outset.” Maj.","paragraph_id":"para_1159"},{"text":"Op. at 17. This misses the mark. The operative delay in § 10(j)","paragraph_id":"para_1160"},{"text":"cases is the delay between the Director’s issuance of a","paragraph_id":"para_1161"},{"text":"complaint and the Director’s petition for § 10(j) relief. See 29","paragraph_id":"para_1162"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 160(j) (“The Board shall have power, upon issuance of","paragraph_id":"para_1163"},{"text":"a complaint … charging that any person has engaged or is","paragraph_id":"para_1164"},{"text":"engaging in an unfair labor practice, to petition any United","paragraph_id":"para_1165"},{"text":"8 For example, the Director listed examples like “grievance protection","paragraph_id":"para_1166"},{"text":"against unjust terminations, safety and health conditions, and freedom","paragraph_id":"para_1167"},{"text":"from unilateral changes in working conditions.”","paragraph_id":"para_1168"},{"text":"38 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_1169"},{"text":"States district court … for appropriate temporary relief or","paragraph_id":"para_1170"},{"text":"restraining order.”) So the Director did not have the statutory","paragraph_id":"para_1171"},{"text":"authority to petition for § 10(j) relief until June 24, 2024, when","paragraph_id":"para_1172"},{"text":"the Director issued the initial complaint, which the Director","paragraph_id":"para_1173"},{"text":"subsequently amended on September 4, 16, and 25, 2024.","paragraph_id":"para_1174"},{"text":"The § 10(j) petition was predicated on the complaint, as","paragraph_id":"para_1175"},{"text":"amended on September 25, 2024. A four-month delay (or six","paragraph_id":"para_1176"},{"text":"and a half months, measured from the initial complaint) is not","paragraph_id":"para_1177"},{"text":"undue or excessive. See Parking Sys., 162 F.4th at 353 (noting,","paragraph_id":"para_1178"},{"text":"“as a practical matter, delays of this length between the filing","paragraph_id":"para_1179"},{"text":"of a complaint and petition are not uncommon in § 10(j)","paragraph_id":"para_1180"},{"text":"litigation” and collecting cases including a one-year delay","paragraph_id":"para_1181"},{"text":"between complaint and petition, eighteen-month delays, and","paragraph_id":"para_1182"},{"text":"a seven-month delay). Consider, after all, the Board’s lengthy","paragraph_id":"para_1183"},{"text":"and rigorous § 10(j) vetting process. See supra at 3–6.","paragraph_id":"para_1184"},{"text":"The majority contends that entering a preliminary","paragraph_id":"para_1185"},{"text":"injunction now “would whipsaw employees who long ago","paragraph_id":"para_1186"},{"text":"voted to decertify their union.”9 Maj. Op. at 17. But this","paragraph_id":"para_1187"},{"text":"concern for whipsawing is all the more reason to preserve the","paragraph_id":"para_1188"},{"text":"status quo: relief that comes at the end of “the notoriously","paragraph_id":"para_1189"},{"text":"glacial course of NLRB proceedings,” Pioneer Press, 881 F.2d","paragraph_id":"para_1190"},{"text":"at 491 (citation omitted), could produce only a more","paragraph_id":"para_1191"},{"text":"significant whipsaw effect. By contrast, if a temporary","paragraph_id":"para_1192"},{"text":"injunction issues now and the Board affirms the ALJ’s","paragraph_id":"para_1193"},{"text":"9 The potential whipsaw effect on employees would be ameliorated","paragraph_id":"para_1194"},{"text":"by the Director’s suggestion that, with permission of the Union,","paragraph_id":"para_1195"},{"text":"employees keep the unilaterally imposed wages and benefits pending a","paragraph_id":"para_1196"},{"text":"final order from the Board. Such a preservation of wages and benefits","paragraph_id":"para_1197"},{"text":"would work to remedy the message communicated to employees by","paragraph_id":"para_1198"},{"text":"Laborforce’s alleged labor-law violations that the Union is ineffectual and","paragraph_id":"para_1199"},{"text":"ill-suited to represent them.","paragraph_id":"para_1200"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 39","paragraph_id":"para_1201"},{"text":"decision, the Union will have far less work to do to rebuild","paragraph_id":"para_1202"},{"text":"support than when the Board’s final decision is issued,","paragraph_id":"para_1203"},{"text":"potentially long after the expiration of the collective","paragraph_id":"para_1204"},{"text":"bargaining agreement. See Francisco Foods, 276 F.3d at 299","paragraph_id":"para_1205"},{"text":"(granting § 10(j) relief even where “more than two years have","paragraph_id":"para_1206"},{"text":"already passed” since employer refused to recognize and","paragraph_id":"para_1207"},{"text":"bargain with the union because “the longer that the Union is","paragraph_id":"para_1208"},{"text":"kept out of the store and from working on behalf of [the]","paragraph_id":"para_1209"},{"text":"employees, the less likely it is to be able to organize and","paragraph_id":"para_1210"},{"text":"represent those employees effectively if and when the Board","paragraph_id":"para_1211"},{"text":"orders the company to commence bargaining.”).","paragraph_id":"para_1212"},{"text":"For the foregoing reasons, I would find that the district","paragraph_id":"para_1213"},{"text":"court abused its discretion by ignoring relevant, Board-","paragraph_id":"para_1214"},{"text":"focused harms while placing too much weight on the","paragraph_id":"para_1215"},{"text":"perceived delay. The majority wrongly rejects “mine-run","paragraph_id":"para_1216"},{"text":"risks of harm” even though extraordinary (that is, equitable)","paragraph_id":"para_1217"},{"text":"relief may be appropriate here. And the majority’s reliance on","paragraph_id":"para_1218"},{"text":"higher wages and lower union support —in this case spurred","paragraph_id":"para_1219"},{"text":"by allegedly unrepresentative and tainted decertification","paragraph_id":"para_1220"},{"text":"petitions—cannot preclude a finding of irreparable harm to","paragraph_id":"para_1221"},{"text":"the labor effort.","paragraph_id":"para_1222"},{"text":"III","paragraph_id":"para_1223"},{"text":"Though the majority does not reach the Director’s","paragraph_id":"para_1224"},{"text":"likelihood of success on the merits, I would reach this factor","paragraph_id":"para_1225"},{"text":"because of my view that the Director has made an adequate","paragraph_id":"para_1226"},{"text":"showing of irreparable harm.","paragraph_id":"para_1227"},{"text":"The district court began its analysis here by concluding","paragraph_id":"para_1228"},{"text":"that it could not opine on the exact scope of the bargaining","paragraph_id":"para_1229"},{"text":"unit. The majority acknowledges that was error, Maj. Op. at","paragraph_id":"para_1230"},{"text":"18–19, and I agree with that assessment. Here, a single CBA","paragraph_id":"para_1231"},{"text":"40 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_1232"},{"text":"referring to a singular bargaining unit governed all","paragraph_id":"para_1233"},{"text":"employees in the Parts and Service Departments. So although","paragraph_id":"para_1234"},{"text":"the parties continue to dispute the merits of the issue, the","paragraph_id":"para_1235"},{"text":"Director made a “strong” showing that she is likely to succeed","paragraph_id":"para_1236"},{"text":"on the merits of her argument about the bargaining unit’s","paragraph_id":"para_1237"},{"text":"proper definition. Ill. Republican Party v. Pritzker, 973 F.3d 760,","paragraph_id":"para_1238"},{"text":"762–63 (7th Cir. 2020) (noting that likelihood of success for","paragraph_id":"para_1239"},{"text":"preliminary injunction “does not mean proof by a","paragraph_id":"para_1240"},{"text":"preponderance”).","paragraph_id":"para_1241"},{"text":"The district court’s assessment of causation also was","paragraph_id":"para_1242"},{"text":"legally erroneous. Loman submitted the first decertification","paragraph_id":"para_1243"},{"text":"petition with signatures only from employees in the Parts","paragraph_id":"para_1244"},{"text":"Department, despite also actively soliciting and failing to","paragraph_id":"para_1245"},{"text":"obtain signatures from any of the 51 employees of the Service","paragraph_id":"para_1246"},{"text":"Department. Acting on that petition, Laborforce signaled its","paragraph_id":"para_1247"},{"text":"intent to withdraw recognition, and also filed its own petition","paragraph_id":"para_1248"},{"text":"with the Director to clarify the scope of the bargaining unit.","paragraph_id":"para_1249"},{"text":"Although the Director denied Laborforce’s petition to clarify,","paragraph_id":"para_1250"},{"text":"Laborforce went ahead and withdrew recognition for","paragraph_id":"para_1251"},{"text":"employees in the Parts Department anyway and unilaterally","paragraph_id":"para_1252"},{"text":"raised wages and some benefits.","paragraph_id":"para_1253"},{"text":"As the district court set forth, a causal relationship","paragraph_id":"para_1254"},{"text":"between an unfair labor practice and union decertification","paragraph_id":"para_1255"},{"text":"proceeds in four steps. See Master Slack Corp., 271 NLRB 78, 84","paragraph_id":"para_1256"},{"text":"(1984). The inquiry looks to (1) the time between the unfair","paragraph_id":"para_1257"},{"text":"labor practice and withdrawing recognition of the union; (2)","paragraph_id":"para_1258"},{"text":"the nature of the illegal acts and any “detrimental or lasting","paragraph_id":"para_1259"},{"text":"effect on employees”; (3) any “tendency to cause employee","paragraph_id":"para_1260"},{"text":"disaffection from the union”; and (4) the effect on “employee","paragraph_id":"para_1261"},{"text":"morale, organizational activities, and membership in the","paragraph_id":"para_1262"},{"text":"union.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_1263"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 41","paragraph_id":"para_1264"},{"text":"The district court erred at the first step of the causal","paragraph_id":"para_1265"},{"text":"analysis by determining that any time at all separated “the","paragraph_id":"para_1266"},{"text":"unfair labor practices and the withdrawal of recognition.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_1267"},{"text":"The district court pinned Laborforce’s unfair labor practice as","paragraph_id":"para_1268"},{"text":"a discrete event that occurred in July 2023. To be sure, the ALJ","paragraph_id":"para_1269"},{"text":"has concluded that Laborforce’s first withdrawal of","paragraph_id":"para_1270"},{"text":"recognition was unlawful. Cf. Rock-Tenn Co. v. NLRB, 69 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_1271"},{"text":"803, 809 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he company was only free to","paragraph_id":"para_1272"},{"text":"withdraw recognition based on objective good faith evidence","paragraph_id":"para_1273"},{"text":"of a loss of majority status.”); Hill-Rom Co. v. NLRB, 957 F.2d","paragraph_id":"para_1274"},{"text":"454, 457 (7th Cir. 1992) (noting that employers may not","paragraph_id":"para_1275"},{"text":"unilaterally re-define the bargaining unit). But Laborforce","paragraph_id":"para_1276"},{"text":"then acted in sequential steps, with its series of unfair labor","paragraph_id":"para_1277"},{"text":"practices culminating in the second successful vote to","paragraph_id":"para_1278"},{"text":"decertify the Union. So if Laborforce did not lawfully","paragraph_id":"para_1279"},{"text":"withdraw recognition from the Part Department (as the ALJ","paragraph_id":"para_1280"},{"text":"has found), Laborforce’s changes to the wages and benefits of","paragraph_id":"para_1281"},{"text":"employees in the Parts Department were an ongoing,","paragraph_id":"para_1282"},{"text":"unilateral change that persisted until the second","paragraph_id":"para_1283"},{"text":"decertification petition. See Mondelez Global LLC v. NLRB, 5","paragraph_id":"para_1284"},{"text":"F.4th 759, 772 (7th Cir. 2021).10","paragraph_id":"para_1285"},{"text":"The district court also concluded that the employees","paragraph_id":"para_1286"},{"text":"benefited from the unfair labor practices. It is not clear that all","paragraph_id":"para_1287"},{"text":"bargaining-unit employees unqualifiedly benefitted (some","paragraph_id":"para_1288"},{"text":"may have been terminated), supra at 2 n.1, 12 n.5, and","paragraph_id":"para_1289"},{"text":"potential employee benefit does not make lawful “the","paragraph_id":"para_1290"},{"text":"10 And as with irreparable harm, the district court did not address the","paragraph_id":"para_1291"},{"text":"full range of arguments. The court assessed only the Director’s argument","paragraph_id":"para_1292"},{"text":"about the July 2023 notification of intent to withdraw recognition. The","paragraph_id":"para_1293"},{"text":"district court’s silence on the other unfair labor practices alleged by the","paragraph_id":"para_1294"},{"text":"Director reinforces my view that the court abused its discretion.","paragraph_id":"para_1295"},{"text":"42 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_1296"},{"text":"defection of union members which it had induced by unfair","paragraph_id":"para_1297"},{"text":"labor practices[.]” Medo, 321 U.S. at 687. The fact that","paragraph_id":"para_1298"},{"text":"Laborforce unilaterally changed the conditions of","paragraph_id":"para_1299"},{"text":"employment for employees in the Parts Department could","paragraph_id":"para_1300"},{"text":"have had a “lasting effect on employees” in the Service","paragraph_id":"para_1301"},{"text":"Department, may have “cause[d] [their] disaffection from the","paragraph_id":"para_1302"},{"text":"union”; and may have had a negative effect “on employee","paragraph_id":"para_1303"},{"text":"morale, organizational activities, and membership in the","paragraph_id":"para_1304"},{"text":"union.” Master Slack, 271 NLRB at 84. And only then did the","paragraph_id":"para_1305"},{"text":"decertification petition achieve the barest majority. The","paragraph_id":"para_1306"},{"text":"district court thus incorrectly rejected the Director’s strong","paragraph_id":"para_1307"},{"text":"showing that the initially unlawful withdrawal of recognition","paragraph_id":"para_1308"},{"text":"tainted the rest of the process, and the court had the","paragraph_id":"para_1309"},{"text":"opportunity to review its own work when the ALJ issued her","paragraph_id":"para_1310"},{"text":"decision, concluding that Laborforce’s string of unfair labor","paragraph_id":"para_1311"},{"text":"practices infected the second decertification effort.11","paragraph_id":"para_1312"},{"text":"Likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm","paragraph_id":"para_1313"},{"text":"are “the most critical” factors in the preliminary-injunction","paragraph_id":"para_1314"},{"text":"inquiry. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). But on the","paragraph_id":"para_1315"},{"text":"remaining factors—balance of equities and the public","paragraph_id":"para_1316"},{"text":"interest—nothing compels a different result. The district court","paragraph_id":"para_1317"},{"text":"focused on the employees’ right to refrain, which, as","paragraph_id":"para_1318"},{"text":"discussed above, supra at 12–17, is intertwined with","paragraph_id":"para_1319"},{"text":"Laborforce’s unfair labor practices. Laborforce identifies no","paragraph_id":"para_1320"},{"text":"11 The district court issued its opinion on September 22, 2025. On the","paragraph_id":"para_1321"},{"text":"same day, the Director notified the court that the ALJ had issued her","paragraph_id":"para_1322"},{"text":"decision on September 18. Of course, the ALJ’s decision was not presented","paragraph_id":"para_1323"},{"text":"to the district court before the opinion was issued, but once available, the","paragraph_id":"para_1324"},{"text":"district court could have, and probably should have, exercised its inherent","paragraph_id":"para_1325"},{"text":"authority to reconsider its ruling in light of the development. See Curran","paragraph_id":"para_1326"},{"text":"v. Kwon, 153 F.3d 481, 487 (7th Cir. 1998).","paragraph_id":"para_1327"},{"text":"No. 25-3110 43","paragraph_id":"para_1328"},{"text":"harms specific to it as an employer, nor does it advance any","paragraph_id":"para_1329"},{"text":"argument about the public interest. Meanwhile, the Director","paragraph_id":"para_1330"},{"text":"highlights that “[t]he public interest is furthered, in part, by","paragraph_id":"para_1331"},{"text":"ensuring that an unfair labor practice will not succeed","paragraph_id":"para_1332"},{"text":"because the Board takes too long to investigate.” Electro-Voice,","paragraph_id":"para_1333"},{"text":"83 F.3d at 1574 (citation modified); see also Am. Red Cross, 714","paragraph_id":"para_1334"},{"text":"F.3d at 557 (“The interest at stake … is the public interest in","paragraph_id":"para_1335"},{"text":"the integrity of the collective bargaining process.” (citation","paragraph_id":"para_1336"},{"text":"modified)).","paragraph_id":"para_1337"},{"text":"IV","paragraph_id":"para_1338"},{"text":"Starbucks does not erase our decades of § 10(j)","paragraph_id":"para_1339"},{"text":"jurisprudence. Quite the opposite, Starbucks endorsed our","paragraph_id":"para_1340"},{"text":"approach in Francisco Foods as a proper application of the","paragraph_id":"para_1341"},{"text":"“traditional equitable principles” guiding all sorts of","paragraph_id":"para_1342"},{"text":"preliminary injunctive relief. 602 U.S. at 345. As a result, our","paragraph_id":"para_1343"},{"text":"longstanding framework for irreparable harm—querying","paragraph_id":"para_1344"},{"text":"whether evidence of weakening union support, or","paragraph_id":"para_1345"},{"text":"degradation of the union’s bargaining position, shows that","paragraph_id":"para_1346"},{"text":"the Union’s strength will continue to decline irreparably","paragraph_id":"para_1347"},{"text":"before the Board can issue a bargaining order—remains good","paragraph_id":"para_1348"},{"text":"law.","paragraph_id":"para_1349"},{"text":"Nevertheless, the majority views Starbucks as having left a","paragraph_id":"para_1350"},{"text":"blank slate, and in response crafts a new framework","paragraph_id":"para_1351"},{"text":"significantly heightening and changing the threshold metrics","paragraph_id":"para_1352"},{"text":"(both qualitatively and quantitively) for irreparable harm in","paragraph_id":"para_1353"},{"text":"this circuit. To show irreparable harm, the Director may no","paragraph_id":"para_1354"},{"text":"longer merely establish that “[t]he union’s position … may","paragraph_id":"para_1355"},{"text":"deteriorate to the point that effective organization and","paragraph_id":"para_1356"},{"text":"representation is no longer possible” rendering the Board’s","paragraph_id":"para_1357"},{"text":"remedial authority futile. Electro-Voice, 83 F.3d at 1573. Now,","paragraph_id":"para_1358"},{"text":"the Director must show evidence of extraordinary underlying","paragraph_id":"para_1359"},{"text":"44 No. 25-3110","paragraph_id":"para_1360"},{"text":"circumstances or “bad-faith employer misconduct” that","paragraph_id":"para_1361"},{"text":"harms individual employees. Maj. Op. at 13. The majority’s","paragraph_id":"para_1362"},{"text":"new standard makes it exceedingly difficult for the Director","paragraph_id":"para_1363"},{"text":"to prevail on a § 10(j) petition in this circuit. Because it follows","paragraph_id":"para_1364"},{"text":"the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Trinity Health in lieu of our own","paragraph_id":"para_1365"},{"text":"precedent and is not compelled—or even suggested—by the","paragraph_id":"para_1366"},{"text":"Supreme Court’s decision in Starbucks, I respectfully dissent.","paragraph_id":"para_1367"}],"word_count":12401,"cites":["602 U.S. 339","598 U.S. 771","517 U.S.\n781","555 U.S. 7","554 U.S. 60","321 U.S. 678","395 U.S. 575","321 U.S. 702","553 U.S. 674","321\nU.S. 678","313 U.S. 177","484 U.S. 112","256\nU.S. 94","547 U.S. 388","395 U.S.\n575","584 U.S. 497","556 U.S. 418","821 F.3d\n905","121 F.4th 604","714 F.3d 553","276 F.3d 270","8 F.4th 531","174 F.4th 942","786\nF.3d 1119","83 F.3d 1559","546 F.3d 491","653 F.3d\n566","162 F.4th 335","786 F.3d 1119","881\nF.2d 485","9 F.3d 113","776\nF.3d 469","653 F.3d 566","853 F.2d 744","19 F.3d 449","54 F.4th 1101","650 F.3d 1334","436 F.2d 520","418 F.2d 736","760 F.3d 654","818 F.2d 485","973 F.3d 760","69 F.3d\n803","957 F.2d\n454","5\nF.4th 759","153 F.3d 481"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"60fa14e31c8fc4bac5f8b6ef811bf7b34a1a4016c34452f29c7e38548fe80eb2","source_url":"https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D09-18/C:25-3110:J:Maldonado:dis:T:fnOp:N:3611792:S:0","fetched_at":"2026-10-01T15:27:20.201+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca7-25-3110-2026-09-18","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca7-25-3110-2026-09-18","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca7-25-3110-2026-09-18","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca7-25-3110-2026-09-18","verification":{"stored_sha256":"60fa14e31c8fc4bac5f8b6ef811bf7b34a1a4016c34452f29c7e38548fe80eb2","recomputed_sha256":"60fa14e31c8fc4bac5f8b6ef811bf7b34a1a4016c34452f29c7e38548fe80eb2","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-14T00:54:40.278Z"}},"hash":"sha256:61b37e8b5aedcfe7f4a1b5ed45498ca0face14952ddbe84421110e5276116f94","version":"legal-2026-10-13","expires":"2026-10-15T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-13+legal-2026-10-13+2026-10-13T21:57:55","content_hash":"sha256:61b37e8b5aedcfe7f4a1b5ed45498ca0face14952ddbe84421110e5276116f94","revalidate_after":"2026-10-14T01:54:40.451Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-25-3110-2026-09-18","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca7-25-3110-2026-09-18"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca7-25-3110-2026-09-18"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca7-25-3110-2026-09-18"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca7-25-3110-2026-09-18","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-43d0b2a3dffc535a448a191fa42cf1c5","response_hash":"sha256:61b37e8b5aedcfe7f4a1b5ed45498ca0face14952ddbe84421110e5276116f94"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T11:44:54.895Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca7-25-3110-2026-09-18&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":60518}}