Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
High court hears challenge over Section 10(j) and the Winter preliminary‑injunction test
Summary
In oral argument in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, counsel for the petitioner urged the court to require district courts to apply the traditional four‑factor Winter test for preliminary injunctions under Section 10(j), while government counsel said context and agency screening are relevant to a predictive judicial inquiry; the case was submitted for decision.
The court heard argument in case 23367, Starbucks Corporation v. McKinney, over whether Section 10(j) requires district courts to apply the traditional four‑factor preliminary‑injunction test from Winter v. NRDC or a more deferential, agency‑sensitive standard.
Miss Blatt, counsel who opened for the petitioner, told the bench that Section 10(j) contains no language diluting the traditional standard and that “preliminary injunctions are extraordinary and drastic remedies.” She said the Court of Appeals’ approach in the case below effectively allowed an injunction whenever “any facts supported a nonfrivolous legal theory,” and urged reversal so district courts must make a clear showing under all four Winter factors before granting coercive relief backed by contempt sanctions.
The petitioner argued that agencies…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat