The NFIB Legal Center recently filed amicus briefs in a trio of cases that will preserve current private-sector labor law against States’ attempts to steal federal authority and impose radical reforms.
For nearly a century, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) has provided the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with exclusive authority over private sector-labor relations. Recently, the NLRB was without a quorum for several months, meaning that it couldn’t make new labor rules. States like New York and California are attempting to use this circumstance as an opportunity to seize that authority for themselves.
On September 5, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed S.8034A into law, amending the New York State Labor Relations Act (NYSLRA). Before the amendment, the law gave authority to a state agency, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), to oversee public sector labor relations. But now, PERB has authority over private sector employees until the NLRB “successfully asserts jurisdiction”—meaning, NLRB has to get a court order to stop PERB.
Two lawsuits were filed challenging the New York law: Amazon.com Services LLC v. NY Public Employment Relations Board, and NLRB v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board. The NFIB Legal Center filed amicus briefs in both cases, arguing that the NLRA provides the NLRB with exclusive authority over labor relations in the private sector. After we filed our brief in the Amazon case, the federal court issued a preliminary injunction, which stopped the New York law from taking effect.
New York is not the only State to attempt this unlawful power grab. California has likewise joined in. On September 30, 2025, less than a month after New York’s law was enacted, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 288. As the California law has it, the NLRB has “impliedly” ceded its jurisdiction when it lacks a quorum, and therefore, California’s PERB can step in to regulate private-sector employees. It also includes a provision that the NLRB’s authority will go to PERB if the NLRB has “lost its independence.” But as federal law mandates, state agencies can only step in when the NLRB declines—by decision or by rule, not by implication or a “loss of independence”—to assert jurisdiction. A challenge to the law came quickly with NLRB v. State of California, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The NFIB Legal Center wrote an amicus brief supporting the challenge. We argued that for a state like California to step in, the NLRB needs
to affirmatively decline jurisdiction. In addition, we pointed out that if other states adopt similar laws, it will result in a patchwork system that is difficult for businesses to navigate.
Thankfully, the court agreed with us. Chief District Judge Troy Nunley held that “[t]he NLRA itself anticipates periods where the Board lacks a quorum,” and that California cannot “nullify the Board” just because the Board’s “independence is lost.” He concluded that “the risk of conflicting jurisdiction and resolutions”—in other words, chaos—was too high, and issued a preliminary injunction, which stopped the most significant parts of the California law from being enforced.
The NFIB Legal Center helped stop the New York and California laws. Meanwhile, our State Government Relations team continues to challenge unlawful labor bills. NFIB remains committed to ensuring fair and predictable labor laws for small business owners.
