Third Circuit just narrowed HR's playbook in NLRB disputes – see what changed
On December 3, 2025, the Third Circuit held district courts cannot enjoin NLRB hearings that arise from labor disputes in Spring Creek’s case under Norris-LaGuardia.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a district court order and held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act removes federal district court jurisdiction to issue an injunction against National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative proceedings when a case involves or grows out of a labor dispute. The ruling came in an appeal brought by Spring Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center LLC, which sought to block an NLRB administrative law judge from issuing a decision in an unfair labor practice case.
The dispute traces back to a New Jersey skilled nursing facility that Spring Creek purchased from Amboy Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in November 2021. For years before the sale, the workforce had been represented by 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East under a collective bargaining agreement that took effect in June 2017 and expired in June 2020. In August 2021, after learning of Amboy’s agreement to sell, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB alleging Amboy violated successor provisions tied to the sale. In the run-up to the acquisition, Spring Creek told the union it would not assume the expired agreement. In May 2023, the union amended its charge to add Spring Creek as a party.
The NLRB issued a complaint against Spring Creek in May 2024 and an amended complaint two months later, alleging refusal to bargain collectively and in good faith in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act. The agency noticed a hearing before an administrative law judge for September 10, 2024. Spring Creek then sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to enjoin the NLRB proceedings, arguing that NLRB Members and administrative law judges are unconstitutionally insulated from presidential removal. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, and the NLRB held the hearing. No Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision has been issued.
On appeal, the Third Circuit addressed a threshold issue the district court had not: whether the Norris-LaGuardia Act’s anti-injunction provisions apply. The court held they do. Because Spring Creek’s suit grows out of a labor dispute, the Act strips district courts of jurisdiction to grant the injunctive relief sought unless the statute’s strict conditions are met. The panel explained that halting the administrative forum would amount to the kind of judicial interference in management-labor relations the Act was designed to prevent. The court vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
The panel discussed contrary authority from the Fifth Circuit in Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. NLRB and declined to follow it, concluding that suits like this can fall within the Act until the NLRB issues an order, at which point a separate provision governs. The court found no applicable exception to the Act.
Judge Montgomery-Reeves concurred in the judgment. She would have dismissed for lack of Article III standing because Spring Creek did not allege an injury in fact caused by the removal protections at issue.
For HR leaders and in-house counsel, the practical point is clear. In the Third Circuit, employers facing NLRB unfair labor practice proceedings should not expect to stop an ALJ process through a district court injunction based on structural challenges to the NLRB. Planning should proceed on the assumption that the administrative hearing will go forward. The underlying allegations remain allegations; the ALJ has not issued a decision, and the appellate ruling addresses jurisdiction and procedure, not the merits.
