In today’s News and Commentary, the Seventh Circuit raises the bar for the NLRB to obtain preliminary injunctions, the California Primary Care Association sues SEIU-UHW for racketeering, and the Seventh Circuit finds that an employer group and think tank do not have standing to challenge an Illinois law banning captive audience meetings.

On Friday, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court ruling declining to issue a section 10(j) preliminary injunction reinstating a recently decertified union. The Court held that, following Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, section 10(j) injunctions are “extraordinary” remedies and “never awarded as of right.” In seeking the section 10(j) injunction, the NLRB regional Director “failed to demonstrate that irreparable harm would result absent an injunction.” Whereas there had been case law suggesting that irreparable harm could be inferred whenever a union’s influence declined, the Court found that this inference was now foreclosed by Starbucks v. McKinney. Section 10(j) injunctions were designed to enable the NLRB to go directly to court to seek preliminary orders preventing harms that cannot be undone after administrative proceedings have concluded. This Seventh Circuit decision widens a circuit split on the impact of Starbucks v. McKinney, with the Sixth and now Seventh Circuit raising the bar for what is considered “irreparable harm” and likelihood of success on the merits, while the Second and Ninth Circuit appear to be adopting or maintaining a more lenient standard.

On Friday, a group of health clinics in California and the California Primary Care Association filed a complaint in the Eastern District of California against Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers (SEIU-UHW) and its president, Dave Regan, asserting claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Plaintiffs allege that SEIU-UHW engaged in a multiyear racketeering scheme, using threats, economic pressure, and ballot initiatives to force clinics to surrender property rights and adopt policies favorable to labor organizing. SEIU-UHW issued a statement addressing attacks it has received in relation to its involvement in Prop. 40, the billionaire tax, calling them “false and misleading” and part of a smear campaign against a union leader. The union addressed this new controversy with Prop. 44, the restriction on spending at nonprofit community health clinics at the center of the CPCA lawsuit, as “the second time the CPCA has attempted to use legal filings to bully SEIU-UHW members into backing down.”

On Friday, oral argument was held in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit over a constitutional challenge to an Illinois law seeking to restrict mandatory anti-union (captive audience) workplace meetings. The three-judge panel raised doubts about the plaintiff employer group and think tank’s standing to bring the case, finding a lack of credible enforcement threat by the Illinois Department of Labor. While the law authorizes employees and interested third parties to sue employers for violations, no suits have been filed, and plaintiffs were unable to provide examples of employees skipping captive audience meetings. Judge Frank H. Easterbrook found that the suit “looks like pre-enforcement litigation” based on a long series of conditional circumstances such that plaintiffs are unable to show the “certainly impending” injury needed to establish standing. Two of the judges on the panel suggested certifying a question to the Illinois Supreme Court to clarify the extent of the director of the Department of Labor’s powers under the statute, as the enforcement powers conferred beyond the receipt of complaints and issuance of right-to-sue letters is unclear. The case was dismissed by the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in September 2025 for failing to show a sufficient threat of enforcement to overcome the director’s sovereign immunity.