On November 26, 2025, U.S. District Judge Eric Komitee in the Eastern District of New York granted Amazon.com, Inc. a preliminary injunction that blocks enforcement of New York State’s new labor law, which would have allowed the state to intervene in private‑sector union disputes. The injunction is a temporary reprieve while Amazon’s broader legal challenge proceeds, protecting the company’s existing labor‑law framework and reducing legal uncertainty for its operations in the state.
The judge found that the New York law is likely preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and conflicts with long‑established federal authority over private‑sector labor relations. In his ruling, Komitee cited the Supreme Court’s 1959 San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon decision, which holds that states must defer to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) when conduct is arguably subject to sections 7 or 8 of the NLRA. The injunction therefore upholds the NLRA’s preemption doctrine and affirms that the NLRB retains exclusive jurisdiction over private‑sector union disputes.
The law was enacted in response to the NLRB’s lack of a full quorum, which has persisted since January 2025 and has created a backlog of cases. New York, along with California, passed similar statutes to allow state labor boards to handle private‑sector disputes, but the NLRB has sued to challenge those laws, arguing that only Congress can address the gap. Amazon’s lawsuit, filed in September 2025, stems from an unfair labor practice charge by the Amazon Labor Union (ALU) with the New York Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) over the firing of a union vice president at the company’s JFK8 warehouse in Staten Island. Amazon contended that PERB lacked authority to adjudicate the case.
The injunction is the first test of a state law designed to fill the NLRB’s vacuum and could set a precedent for similar legislation in other states. By blocking the law’s enforcement, the court preserves the status quo and limits potential state‑level interference in Amazon’s union negotiations, thereby maintaining the company’s operational stability and legal predictability.
The decision underscores the ongoing tension between state initiatives to address labor‑law gaps and federal preemption under the NLRA. It also highlights the strategic importance of the NLRB’s quorum crisis, as states seek to assert authority in the absence of a fully functioning federal board. For Amazon, the injunction is a significant win that safeguards its existing labor‑law framework and reduces the risk of state‑level litigation affecting its workforce relations.
The ruling is expected to influence future legal challenges to state labor laws, as it reaffirms the NLRA’s preemption doctrine and signals that federal authority will be upheld in similar disputes.
The injunction does not resolve the broader legal battle; Amazon’s lawsuit continues, and the outcome of the full‑court case will determine whether the New York law can ultimately be enforced.
The decision also serves as a warning to other employers and state legislatures that state‑level labor laws that encroach on federal jurisdiction may face judicial pushback.
The injunction is a temporary measure, but it provides Amazon with a reprieve that allows the company to focus on its core operations without the immediate threat of state intervention in its union negotiations.
The content on BeyondSPX is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as financial or investment advice. We are not financial advisors. Consult with a qualified professional before making any investment decisions. Any actions you take based on information from this site are solely at your own risk.