This Court has already considered and rejected Defendants’ argument that the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 103-115, (“NLGA”) is bars injunctive relief in this context. See Vanderbilt Univ. v. Nat'l Lab. Rels. Bd., No. 3:24-CV-01301, 2024 WL 5109420, at *18 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 12, 2024). In Vanderbilt, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) sought to enforce its order against Vanderbilt to produce information about students, at the risk of losing federal funding under Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, who a union sought to represent or to be precluded from making arguments during election related proceedings. Id. at *1. As a result, and in relevant part, Vanderbilt filed a motion for preliminary injunction in this Court seeking to enjoin the NLRB from taking further action in the union representation proceeding on the ground that the agency’s election procedures violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Id. at *3. The NLRB, as it does here, argued that the NLGA prohibited an injunction barring the agency from taking action because there was a “labor dispute” involved. Id. at *3-*4. After a analyzing the NLGA’s legislative history, structure and plain language, this Court concluded that the NLGA does not apply because “nothing in the NLGA contemplates prohibiting injunctions against a labor agency as related to its own regulations . . . [T]he NLGA bars injunctive relief relating only to specific conduct exercised by workers…” Id. at *15. This Court’s reasoning was correct, and it applies here.

As this court correctly noted, the NLGA only bars injunctions prohibiting or restraining a conduct that falls within one of nine categories: the NLGA bars injunctive relief relating only to specific conduct exercised by workers, including: “ceasing or refusing to perform work, id. § 104(a); becoming or remaining a member of a labor organization, id. § 104(b); paying or withholding from persons participating in a strike or labor dispute, id. § 104(c); aiding a person participating in a labor dispute, id. § 104(d); giving publicity to a labor dispute, id. § 104(e); assembling to act or organize, id. § 104(f); advising someone of an intent to do the other acts specified under § 104, id. § 104(g); agreeing with others to not do the acts specified under § 104, id. § 104(h); and advising or urging the acts specified under § 104, id. § 104(i).” Vanderbilt, 2024 WL 5109420, at *15. This Court went on to note that “none of the activities listed in § 104(a)–(i) are aimed at preventing an employer…from prohibiting an agency from enforcing purportedly invalid regulations.” Id. Likewise, nothing in the NGLA is aimed at preventing the NLRB from engaging in conduct prohibited by the Constitution.

As it did in Vanderbilt, this Court should reject the NLRB’s argument that the NLGA bars an injunction against its unlawful conduct. That statute was designed to safeguard the right of labor organizations and other employee associations from exercising their right to engage in concerted activity without interference from courts. The NLRB argues for an overbroad reading of the law that does not comport with either its plain language or spirit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5659076&forum_id=2Elisa#48519040)

Overuse of Complex Phrasing: The opening sentence, while technically sound, could benefit from brevity. For example:

"This Court has already considered and rejected Defendants’ argument that the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 103-115, (“NLGA”) is bars injunctive relief in this context."

"The NLGA bars injunctive relief" could be simplified to "The NLGA bars injunctive relief in this context." It's a minor tweak, but it could help you avoid redundancy.

Flow and Precision: The second paragraph is fairly dense, especially with the cross-references to multiple case specifics and statutory sections. While that depth is necessary, consider trimming unnecessary repetition of procedural points:

"Vanderbilt filed a motion for preliminary injunction in this Court seeking to enjoin the NLRB from taking further action in the union representation proceeding on the ground that the agency’s election procedures violated the Administrative Procedures Act."

While factually rich, this could be streamlined into something like: "Vanderbilt sought a preliminary injunction to halt NLRB actions in a union representation case, claiming violations of the Administrative Procedures Act." This retains clarity and keeps the focus on the central issue.

Tightening Legal References: The statutory details, while important, could be integrated more smoothly. When you list the various categories under § 104 of the NLGA, it might be helpful to consolidate the reference instead of listing out each category in full. This helps keep the reader engaged:

Instead of:

"the NLGA bars injunctive relief relating only to specific conduct exercised by workers, including: ceasing or refusing to perform work, id. § 104(a); becoming or remaining a member of a labor organization, id. § 104(b); paying or withholding from persons participating in a strike or labor dispute..."

You might consider:

"The NLGA bars injunctions only in relation to certain worker activities—such as refusing work, union membership, or strike participation (29 U.S.C. § 104)."

Ensuring Structural Cohesion: The final two paragraphs reiterate similar points about the NLRB’s overbroad reading and the need for judicial intervention. They are logically sound, but the repetitive nature could be reduced to tighten the legal argument:

For example, the sentence:

"Likewise, nothing in the NGLA is aimed at preventing the NLRB from engaging in conduct prohibited by the Constitution."

Could be collapsed into something more direct: "The NLGA does not shield the NLRB from engaging in unconstitutional conduct." This shortens the sentence and makes the point more forceful.

Existential Critique: If I were to channel some Mainlining existential flavor here, I’d note that the very structure of the NLGA seems to echo a futile system that attempts to restrict judicial intervention under the guise of protecting worker’s rights while perpetuating a hollow cycle. The NLRB's argument could be viewed as an attempt to suppress the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional integrity—an irony where the very tool designed to protect rights is weaponized to stifle them. There’s a rhythm to the law’s application that makes its gaps feel almost designed for exploitation.

Final Thoughts: Overall, you’re making a compelling argument, but refining the phrasing and focusing on essential points—cutting extraneous legalistic details—will ensure your brief hits with the sharpness you need. This is a high-stakes moment, and the Court doesn’t need more detail; it needs clarity and precision.

Feel free to refine the section along these lines, keeping the core logic intact while streamlining the language. When existential critique meets legal precision, the effect can be both devastating and enlightening.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5659076&forum_id=2Elisa#48519912)

I doubt we will get the injunction, but we will win on the NLGA act issue. Not sure what retard at the NLRB came up with that. It was clearly designed to keep courts out of labor strikes and picketing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5659076&forum_id=2Elisa#48519938)