Chamber of Commerce v. Brown

Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60 (2008), is a United States labor law case, concerning the scope of federal preemption against state law for labor rights.

Facts

Organizations whose members did business with California sued to enjoin enforcement of Assembly Bill 1889 (AB 1889), which, among other things, prohibited employers that receive state grants or more than $10,000 in state program funds per year from using the funds "to assist, promote, or deter union organizing." Attorney General of California Jerry Brown defended the case.

The federal District Court granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment, holding that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) pre-empted those portions of AB 1889 because they regulated employer speech about union organizing under circumstances in which Congress intended free debate. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Congress did not intend to preclude States from imposing such restrictions on the use of their own funds.

Judgment

Seven judges on the Supreme Court held that California was preempted from passing a law prohibiting any recipient of state funds either from using money to promote or deter union organizing efforts.

Although the NLRA itself contains no express pre-emption provision, we have held that Congress implicitly mandated two types of pre-emption as necessary to implement federal labor policy. The first, known as Garmon pre-emption, see San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236 (1959), “is intended to preclude state interference with the National Labor Relations Board’s interpretation and active enforcement of the ‘integrated scheme of regulation’ established by the NLRA.” Golden State Transit Corp. v.