Import Motors II, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Background

After Import Motors II, Inc. fired an employee in December 2023, the union representing the employee filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In January 2025, the NLRB issued an administrative complaint against Import and scheduled a hearing before an administrative law judge for September 10, 2025.

Import moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop the hearing. A preliminary injunction is an order providing temporary relief before a case is finally resolved. Import raised three constitutional objections: (1) that two layers of protection against removal from office improperly insulated NLRB administrative law judges and Board members from presidential control; (2) that any tort-like damages awarded by the administrative law judge would violate Import’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial; and (3) that awarding such damages in an administrative proceeding would violate separation-of-powers principles.

Court’s Analysis

To obtain either form of emergency relief, Import had to show, among other things, that it was likely to suffer irreparable harm—harm that could not be adequately repaired later. The court held that Import failed to make that showing for any of its constitutional objections.

For the removal challenge, the court applied Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit decisions requiring a party to show that allegedly unconstitutional removal restrictions caused actual harm in the proceeding. Import did not explain how the restrictions on removing NLRB administrative law judges or Board members would affect the scheduled hearing. The court also found no basis to conclude that the President had tried to remove an official and had been prevented from doing so.

The court rejected Import’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC eliminated this requirement. The court understood Axon to address where a party could bring a constitutional challenge—not whether the party had shown injury or was entitled to an injunction. The court therefore concluded that Axon did not create an automatic finding of irreparable harm whenever someone challenges an agency’s adjudicative process.

The court applied similar reasoning to the Seventh Amendment and separation-of-powers objections. The NLRB’s administrative complaint did not seek damages, and Import provided no evidence that the NLRB intended to seek them in this proceeding. Import’s concern that such damages might be pursued, and that it might be unable to prevent them, was speculative. The court also stated that a money award could generally be addressed through an appeal, and that litigation expenses are not irreparable harm.

The court further noted that the NLRB had notified Import of the hearing more than seven months before Import filed the action. Import then waited six more days after filing the lawsuit before seeking emergency relief and did not provide a reason for the delay other than waiting for more favorable case law. The court stated that the delay indicated a lack of urgency and irreparable harm.

Disposition

The court denied Import’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Because Import failed to satisfy the irreparable-harm requirement, the order did not reach any other issue presented in the motion or the parties’ briefing. Judge Rita F. Lin entered the order on September 8, 2025.