In the Amazon case, Judge Eric Komitee of the Eastern District of New York did what federal judges are supposed to do: he applied Garmon<\/em> like it\u2019s been applied for 65 years, slapped New York\u2019s SERA amendment off the table, and told the state to go sit in the corner while the National Labor Relations Board \u2014 the federal agency Congress explicitly empowered to regulate labor relations<\/em> \u2014 does its job.<\/p>\n Even though the \u201cfederal scheme,\u201d the one that supposedly occupies the field so completely that New York can\u2019t regulate labor relations even when it wants to, isn\u2019t a scheme at all anymore. It\u2019s a smoldering crater where an independent NLRB used to be.<\/p>\n From Judge Komitee\u2019s opinion:<\/p>\n In Garmon<\/em>, the Supreme Court held that \u201c[w]hen an activity is arguably subject to \u00a7 7 or \u00a7 8 of the [NLRA], the States as well as the federal courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the [NLRB].\u201d 359 U.S. at 245. This rule \u201cprevents States not only from setting forth standards of conduct inconsistent with the substantive requirements of the NLRA, but also from providing their own regulatory or judicial<\/em> remedies<\/em><\/strong> for conduct prohibited or arguably prohibited by the Act.\u201d Gould<\/em>, 475 U.S. at 286 (emphasis added).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n When Congress created this system, it envisioned a functioning, independent federal agency. It didn\u2019t anticipate an administration that would fire board members in defiance of statutory removal protections, strip the agency of its quorum, and then pledge to keep the agency functionally shut down either through vacancies or stacking the Board with cronies hostile to executing its statutory mission. Does the federal government still \u201coccupy the field\u201d when it\u2019s intentionally sowing the field with salt like it\u2019s Carthage?<\/p>\n New York knew that states have no legal authority to regulate labor relations otherwise covered by the NLRA and would be shut down by the courts if they ever tried. That\u2019s why its law, until recently, only applied to workers excluded from the NLRA. What New York hoped was that the unique circumstances brought on by the federal government under Trump occupying the field in name only would be recognized by the courts as the federal government abandoning the field. Clever theory! Also a failed one. <\/p>\n Judge Komitee acknowledged the state\u2019s argument that these \u201chistorically unique circumstances\u201d justified an exception to Garmon<\/em>. He just couldn\u2019t do anything about it, noting that \u201cthe Supreme Court\u2019s clear pronouncements include no \u2018unique circumstances\u2019 exception.\u201d <\/p>\n Which turns the Supremacy Clause into both a sword and shield in ways that would give the Framers nightmares. <\/p>\n The federal government, via the NLRA, claims exclusive authority by occupying the space. Then the federal government, via the executive branch acting unilaterally, retreats from that space. And states can\u2019t fill the vacuum because the federal government is still technically \u201cthere\u201d \u2014 even if they\u2019re only \u201cthere\u201d the same way a condemned building is still technically there. But it\u2019s a sword and shield with a separation of powers twist since the Supremacy Clause impliedly gets its power from the idea that a federal law is passed by Congress and signed by the president, while in this case the executive branch is acting alone in repurposing the law. <\/p>\n Shouldn\u2019t that change the analysis? Probably\u2026 but that\u2019s not a set of circumstances that federal district courts are really equipped to address.<\/p>\n Because doctrine wasn\u2019t built to handle bad faith. No one thought enough to add a footnote to Garmon<\/em> about a Twilight Zone<\/em> scenario where a future executive might seize control over putatively independent agencies and then either gut them or weaponize them to dismantle the very laws they are statutorily put there to enforce.<\/p>\n So states are constitutionally barred from protecting workers, even when the federal government refuses to do so, because the federal government keeps a statute on the books promising that it might theoretically start protecting them again someday.<\/p>\n The constitutional crisis isn\u2019t that the judge got this wrong. It\u2019s that he got it right. <\/p>\n (Full opinion available on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n The post State Makes Failed Attempt To Protect Workers Since Trump\u2019s NLRB Won\u2019t<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n New York watched the federal government give up on labor relations law and tried to do something about it. The state lost. Because the law doesn\u2019t work that way. <\/p>\n Last week, Amazon successfully secured a preliminary injunction blocking New York from enforcing its newly amended State Employment Relations Act. SERA historically covered agricultural and non-employee contractors left unprotected by the NLRA. In September, New York expanded SERA to cover workers traditionally under federal jurisdiction \u2014 explicitly citing the Trump administration\u2019s decision to leave the NLRB without a quorum.<\/p>\n But that\u2019s not how the Supremacy Clause works. When the federal government announces its intention to occupy a regulatory field \u2014 here, labor law under the NLRA \u2014 the states get kicked out of the sandbox. Garmon<\/em> and Machinists<\/em> underscore this arrangement, confirming that if conduct is even \u201carguably\u201d protected or prohibited by Sections 7 or 8, the federal scheme wins.<\/p>\n In the Amazon case, Judge Eric Komitee of the Eastern District of New York did what federal judges are supposed to do: he applied Garmon<\/em> like it\u2019s been applied for 65 years, slapped New York\u2019s SERA amendment off the table, and told the state to go sit in the corner while the National Labor Relations Board \u2014 the federal agency Congress explicitly empowered to regulate labor relations<\/em> \u2014 does its job.<\/p>\n Even though the \u201cfederal scheme,\u201d the one that supposedly occupies the field so completely that New York can\u2019t regulate labor relations even when it wants to, isn\u2019t a scheme at all anymore. It\u2019s a smoldering crater where an independent NLRB used to be.<\/p>\n From Judge Komitee\u2019s opinion:<\/p>\n In Garmon<\/em>, the Supreme Court held that \u201c[w]hen an activity is arguably subject to \u00a7 7 or \u00a7 8 of the [NLRA], the States as well as the federal courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the [NLRB].\u201d 359 U.S. at 245. This rule \u201cprevents States not only from setting forth standards of conduct inconsistent with the substantive requirements of the NLRA, but also from providing their own regulatory or judicial<\/em> remedies<\/em><\/strong> for conduct prohibited or arguably prohibited by the Act.\u201d Gould<\/em>, 475 U.S. at 286 (emphasis added).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n When Congress created this system, it envisioned a functioning, independent federal agency. It didn\u2019t anticipate an administration that would fire board members in defiance of statutory removal protections, strip the agency of its quorum, and then pledge to keep the agency functionally shut down either through vacancies or stacking the Board with cronies hostile to executing its statutory mission. Does the federal government still \u201coccupy the field\u201d when it\u2019s intentionally sowing the field with salt like it\u2019s Carthage?<\/p>\n New York knew that states have no legal authority to regulate labor relations otherwise covered by the NLRA and would be shut down by the courts if they ever tried. That\u2019s why its law, until recently, only applied to workers excluded from the NLRA. What New York hoped was that the unique circumstances brought on by the federal government under Trump occupying the field in name only would be recognized by the courts as the federal government abandoning the field. Clever theory! Also a failed one. <\/p>\n Judge Komitee acknowledged the state\u2019s argument that these \u201chistorically unique circumstances\u201d justified an exception to Garmon<\/em>. He just couldn\u2019t do anything about it, noting that \u201cthe Supreme Court\u2019s clear pronouncements include no \u2018unique circumstances\u2019 exception.\u201d <\/p>\n Which turns the Supremacy Clause into both a sword and shield in ways that would give the Framers nightmares. <\/p>\n The federal government, via the NLRA, claims exclusive authority by occupying the space. Then the federal government, via the executive branch acting unilaterally, retreats from that space. And states can\u2019t fill the vacuum because the federal government is still technically \u201cthere\u201d \u2014 even if they\u2019re only \u201cthere\u201d the same way a condemned building is still technically there. But it\u2019s a sword and shield with a separation of powers twist since the Supremacy Clause impliedly gets its power from the idea that a federal law is passed by Congress and signed by the president, while in this case the executive branch is acting alone in repurposing the law. <\/p>\n Shouldn\u2019t that change the analysis? Probably\u2026 but that\u2019s not a set of circumstances that federal district courts are really equipped to address.<\/p>\n Because doctrine wasn\u2019t built to handle bad faith. No one thought enough to add a footnote to Garmon<\/em> about a Twilight Zone<\/em> scenario where a future executive might seize control over putatively independent agencies and then either gut them or weaponize them to dismantle the very laws they are statutorily put there to enforce.<\/p>\n So states are constitutionally barred from protecting workers, even when the federal government refuses to do so, because the federal government keeps a statute on the books promising that it might theoretically start protecting them again someday.<\/p>\n The constitutional crisis isn\u2019t that the judge got this wrong. It\u2019s that he got it right. <\/p>\n (Full opinion available on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n The post State Makes Failed Attempt To Protect Workers Since Trump\u2019s NLRB Won\u2019t<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" New York watched the federal government give up on labor relations law and tried to do something about it. The state lost. Because the law doesn\u2019t work that way. Last week, Amazon successfully secured a preliminary injunction blocking New York from enforcing its newly amended State Employment Relations Act. SERA historically covered agricultural and non-employee […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":138023,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Headshot-300x200-954rGX.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138022","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138022"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138022\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/138023"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n![\"Headshot\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2016\/11\/Headshot-300x200.jpg?resize=188%2C125&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\nJoe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n