Constructive Denial and Interlocutory Jurisdiction in NLRB Proceedings

Introduction

Amazon.com Services LLC (“Amazon”) appealed the district court’s handling of its request for injunctive relief to block two National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) administrative proceedings: one challenging the results of a union election at Amazon’s Staten Island warehouse (the “Election Case”) and another alleging Amazon’s refusal to bargain with the newly certified Amazon Labor Union (“ALU”) (the “Bargaining Case”). Amazon sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, claiming that continued prosecution of the NLRB proceedings would irreparably harm its constitutional rights. When the district court neither granted nor denied Amazon’s motion before the NLRB’s show‐cause deadline, Amazon noticed an appeal. The Fifth Circuit was asked to decide whether that inaction amounted to a “constructive denial” of injunctive relief, thus allowing immediate appellate review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit dismissed Amazon’s appeal for lack of subject‐matter jurisdiction. It held that a district court does not automatically deny a preliminary injunction request simply by failing to rule by a party’s preferred deadline. Rather, appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory denial arises only when (1) there is a legitimate basis for urgency—such as a fast‐closing window that would moot meaningful relief—and (2) the movant has diligently pressed for an expedited ruling or hearing. Here, Amazon’s constitutional concerns hinged on the possibility of an adverse NLRB summary judgment after its September 27 deadline to respond to a show‐cause order. But Amazon never formally asked the district court to rule by that date until one day before. The court concluded Amazon did not demonstrate sufficient urgency or diligence, so there was no “constructive denial” and thus no interlocutory appeal right.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1): Grants appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory orders refusing or dissolving injunctions, including those that effectually amount to a denial.
• Carson v. American Brands, Inc. (450 U.S. 79, 83–84 (1981)): Confirmed that an order with the “practical effect” of refusing an injunction is appealable.
• Gen. Elec. Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co. (287 U.S. 430, 433 (1932)): Early recognition that a de facto denial is appealable.
• In re Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce (100 F.4th 528 (5th Cir. 2024)): Established a two‐part test for constructive denial—(a) legitimate urgency; (b) diligence in pressing for a ruling.
• Axon Enterprises, Inc. v. FTC (598 U.S. 175 (2023)): Distinguished “here‐and‐now” harms from collateral‐review harms in agency proceedings, underscoring the importance of preliminary relief to preserve constitutional claims.

Legal Reasoning

The court framed its analysis around whether Amazon’s motion for injunctive relief had been effectively denied by the district court’s failure to rule before the NLRB’s show‐cause deadline. It applied the two‐part test from In re Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce:

1. Legitimate Basis for Urgency
   A party must show that impending, irreversible consequences flow from a missed deadline. In Fort Worth, a looming compliance window under a new agency rule demanded expedited relief. Here, Amazon argued that an adverse NLRB summary‐judgment order issued promptly after the show‐cause deadline would moot its constitutional claims. The Fifth Circuit found that Amazon failed to show the Board was likely to act on that exact date; indeed, Amazon itself acknowledged NLRB decisions often take weeks or months.
2. Diligence in Seeking Expedited Relief
   The litigant must have repeatedly pressed the district court for a ruling by the critical date. In Fort Worth, the plaintiffs made multiple, explicit requests for an expedited decision by a specific day. Amazon, by contrast, never formally asked the court to rule by September 27 until 24 hours before that date, despite several earlier opportunities in its filings and at the motions hearing.

Concluding neither factor was satisfied, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court’s docket management and its eventual denial of the temporary restraining order were not appealable interlocutory orders. Because no “constructive denial” occurred, the court lacked jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1).

Impact

This decision clarifies and narrows the circumstances in which litigants can appeal district court inaction on preliminary‐injunction motions:

• Litigants must demonstrate a pressing, objectively imminent deadline that would render permanent relief ineffective if preliminary relief is denied.
• They must diligently and repeatedly demand expedited treatment, specifying dates for rulings, hearings, and briefing schedules.
• The ruling affirms district courts’ broad discretion over docket management and discourages manufactured urgency strategies aimed solely at obtaining immediate appellate review.

In labor‐law disputes before the NLRB, parties now face a higher bar to secure interlocutory appellate review of preliminary‐injunction denials. They must plan carefully to preserve their rights and must move with clear, timely, and repeated requests if they wish to invoke § 1292(a)(1).

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Constructive Denial: When a court fails to rule on an injunction motion within a timeframe that effectively prevents relief, it may be treated as a denial.
• Interlocutory Appeal: An appeal of a non‐final order, permitted only in certain categories (such as injunction refusals) under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a).
• Show‐Cause Deadline: The date by which a party must respond to an agency’s notice; missing it can prompt quick agency action, potentially mooting ongoing litigation.
• Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) vs. Preliminary Injunction: A TRO is an emergency, short‐term halt to proceedings, while a preliminary injunction preserves rights until a full hearing.

Conclusion

Amazon.com v. NLRB refines the doctrine of “constructive denial” by insisting on two prerequisites: a genuine, short‐closing window that risks mooting the case, and a litigant’s persistent efforts to compel a district court ruling by a known date. The Fifth Circuit’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction underscores district courts’ latitude in controlling their calendars and the necessity for litigants to act swiftly and clearly when seeking expedited relief. This precedent will guide future parties in both labor‐law and other contexts in framing and pursuing emergency injunctive relief before federal courts.