1 

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION 

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) 

File Name: 16a0275p.06 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

_________________ 

UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND 

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA 

LOCAL 3047, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

HARDIN COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al., 

Defendants-Appellants. 

┐

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

┘

No. 16-5246 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville. 

No. 3:15-cv-00066—David J. Hale, District Judge. 

Argued: October 18, 2016 

Decided and Filed: November 18, 2016 

Before: BOGGS, SUHRHEINRICH, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges. 

_________________ 

COUNSEL 

ARGUED: John T. Lovett, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for 

Appellants. James B. Coppess, AFL-CIO LEGAL DEPARTMENT, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellees. ON BRIEF: John T. Lovett, Kyle D. Johnson, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, 

Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellants. James B. Coppess, Craig Becker, AFL-CIO LEGAL 

DEPARTMENT, Washington, D.C., Irwin H. Cutler, Jr., Louisville, Kentucky, Robert M. 

Colone, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellees. Mitchel T. Denham, Matt James, OFFICE OF 

THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL, Frankfort, Kentucky, Kevin J. Hobson, 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae. 

>
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 2 

_________________ 

OPINION 

_________________ 

 McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. This case presents a challenge by numerous collective 

bargaining organizations to a Kentucky county’s so-called “right to work” ordinance. The 

Unions contend the ordinance is unenforceable because it is preempted by the National Labor 

Relations Act. 

 The district court awarded summary judgment to the unions, holding that the ordinance is 

preempted. The court recognized that the NLRA expressly excepts from preemption such rightto-work protections under “State law,” but held that the law of a State’s political subdivision is 

not “State law.” For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 The National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) is undoubtedly intended to create a 

national, uniform body of labor law and policy, but the language used to carry out this purpose is 

not definite. Further, although the NLRA has been a fixture of the American legal landscape for 

more than 80 years, there is little authoritative case law on the instant question regarding the 

Act’s preemptive scope. In the absence of any controlling authority, the district court relied 

primarily on a canon of construction. The court described the context for its decision clearly and 

succinctly as follows: 

 The National Labor Relations Act is a broad federal law that regulates the 

relationships between employers and unions. The NLRA permits agreements 

between employers and unions that require employees to join or pay dues to the 

union, known as union-security agreements. But the NLRA also permits “State or 

Territorial” laws that prohibit such agreements, commonly referred to as right-towork laws. The primary question presented by this lawsuit is whether a right-towork law may be enacted solely by a state or territorial government, or whether a 

local government—in this case a county—may pass a law prohibiting unionsecurity agreements. Because the Court finds that local regulation of unionsecurity agreements is preempted by the NLRA, the right-to-work ordinance at 

issue here is invalid. 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 3 

 The Fiscal Court of Hardin County is the legislative body for Hardin 

County, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. In the 

absence of a Kentucky state law prohibiting union-security agreements, the 

Hardin Fiscal Court passed a county ordinance on January 13, 2015, Ordinance 

300, which purports to ensure that no employee is required to join or pay dues to a 

union. The right-to-work provision is found in Section 4 of Ordinance 300, which 

states that 

no person covered by the National Labor Relations Act shall be 

required as a condition of employment or continuation of 

employment: 

. . . 

(B) to become or remain a member of a labor organization; 

(C) to pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any 

kind or amount to a labor organization; [or] 

(D) to pay to any charity or other third party, in lieu of such 

payments, any amount equivalent to or a pro-rata portion of dues, 

fees, assessments, or other charges regularly required of members 

of a labor organization[.] 

Section 6 of the ordinance declares any such agreements “unlawful, null and void, 

and of no legal effect.” 

 The plaintiff labor organizations assert that Sections 4 and 6 of the 

ordinance violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. According to the 

plaintiffs, the NLRA preempts right-to-work laws not specifically authorized in 

§ 14(b) of the Act, including the Hardin County ordinance. Also preempted, they 

argue, is Ordinance 300’s regulation of “hiring-hall” agreements—which require 

prospective employees to be recommended, approved, referred, or cleared by or 

through a labor organization—and “dues-checkoff” provisions—which require 

employers to automatically deduct union dues, fees, assessments, or other charges 

from employees’ paychecks and transfer them to the union. The defendants, 

various Hardin County officials, contend that the ordinance constitutes state law 

within the meaning of § 14(b) and thus is not preempted by the NLRA. 

 In 1935, Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act, which 

established federal labor relations standards and the National Labor Relations 

Board. See 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. In response to abuses of closed-shop 

agreements, which mandated that only union members be hired, Congress enacted 

the Taft-Hartley Act banning such agreements. See Oil, Chemical & Atomic 

Workers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO v. Mobil Oil Corp., 426 U.S. 407, 414-17 (1976). 

Congress still allowed for union-shop agreements, which require employees to 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 4 

join the union soon after they are hired, and agency-shop agreements, which 

require employees to pay union dues whether or not they are members of the 

union. Id. at 409 & n.1. In § 14(b) of the NLRA, however, Congress gave any 

State or Territory the option to exempt itself from that policy. Id. at 409 & n.2. 

Section 14(b), entitled “Construction of Provisions,” provides: 

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the execution 

or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor 

organization as a condition of employment in any State or 

Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by 

State or Territorial law. 

29 U.S.C. § 164(b). Union-security agreements are also addressed in § 8(a)(3). 

Pursuant to that section, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer 

by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any 

term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage 

membership in any labor organization: Provided, That nothing in 

this Act, or in any other statute of the United States, shall preclude 

an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization 

. . . to require as a condition of employment membership therein on 

or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such 

employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever is 

the later[.] 

29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3). Thus, § 8(a)(3) provides that no federal statute shall 

preclude union security agreements, while § 14(b) provides that state and 

territorial laws prohibiting such agreements shall take precedence over the NLRA. 

In other words, if Ordinance 300 constitutes state law within the meaning of 

§ 14(b), it is valid and enforceable. If not, then the question is whether the NLRA 

preempts a regulation that falls outside of that section. 

United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Hardin Cty., 

Ky., 160 F. Supp. 3d 1004, 1006–08 (W.D. Ky. 2016) (headings, footnotes, and record citations 

omitted). 

 The district court went on to conclude that Hardin County’s Ordinance 300 is not “State 

law” under § 14(b) and is therefore not excepted from preemption under that section. Id. at 

1010. The court further found that, apart from § 14(b), the NLRA preempts, as a function of 

Garmon field preemption, state and local regulation of any activity that the NLRA even arguably 

protects or prohibits. Id. at 1010–12 (citing San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 

359 U.S. 236, 247 (1959)). Reasoning that § 14(b) is the only exception to this broad 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 5 

preemption, and that § 14(b) does not encompass the law of a local subdivision, the court held 

that the County’s right-to-work ordinance—a law that regulates union-security agreements, an 

activity “protected” by § 8(a)(3) of the NLRA— is preempted and unenforceable. Id. Also 

preempted, the court held, are the ordinance’s prohibitions of (a) “hiring hall” agreements—

which require prospective employees to be recommended, approved, referred, or cleared by or 

through a labor organization; and (b) “dues checkoff” provisions—which require employers to 

automatically deduct union dues, fees, assessments, or other charges from employees’ paychecks 

and transfer them to the union. Id. at 1012–14. 

 Hardin County contends on appeal that because it is a subdivision of state government, its 

laws do come within the § 14(b) exception; and that, even if the court disagrees, the ordinance is 

still valid because Congress has expressly declined to occupy the field of union-security 

agreement regulation. 

II. ANALYSIS

 A. Meaning and Significance of § 14(b)

(1) Statutory Construction

 All of the County’s claims of error present questions of law, which we review de novo. 

Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted, 834 F.3d 620, 628 (6th Cir. 2016). There are no disputed 

issues of fact and, on de novo review, the district court’s legal conclusions are entitled to no 

deference. 

 The NLRA was enacted to “obtain ‘uniform application’ of its substantive rules and to 

avoid the ‘diversities and conflicts likely to result from a variety of local procedures and attitudes 

toward labor controversies.’” NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co., 404 U.S. 138, 144 (1971) (quoting 

Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union, 346 U.S. 485, 490 (1953)). “The 

federal regulatory scheme (1) protects some activities, though not violence, (2) prohibits some 

practices, and (3) leaves others to be controlled by the free play of economic forces.” NashFinch, 404 U.S. at 144 (citation omitted). “For a state to impinge on the area of labor combat 

designed to be free is quite as much an obstruction of federal policy as if the state were to declare 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 6 

picketing free for purposes or by methods which the federal Act prohibits.” Id. (quoting Garner, 

346 U.S. at 500). 

 Yet, despite the breadth of Congress’s purpose to create a national, uniform body of labor 

law and policy, the boundaries of federal preemption “are not susceptible of delimitation by 

fixed metes and bounds.” San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 240 

(1959). “The extent to which the variegated laws of the several States are displaced by a single, 

uniform, national rule has been a matter of frequent and recurring concern . . . ‘of a Delphic 

nature, to be translated into concreteness by the process of litigating elucidation.’” Id. at 241 

(quoting Int’l Ass’n of Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U.S. 617, 619 (1958)). 

 Indeed, more than fifty years after the Garmon Court recognized the role of “litigating 

elucidation,” the extent of NLRA preemption of laws regulating union-security agreements has 

not been fully concretized. But even assuming the NLRA has preemptive reach in this area, 

Hardin County contends the right-to-work protection afforded by § 4 of Ordinance 300 is clearly 

excepted from preemption by § 14(b) of the NLRA. The district court decided this was not clear 

at all. Again, the full text of § 14(b): 

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application 

of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of 

employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is 

prohibited by State or Territorial law. 

29 U.S.C. § 164(b). The district court rejected the County’s argument that its right-to-work 

ordinance—prohibiting employers from requiring union membership as a condition of 

employment—being a law of a political subdivision of the very entity whose authority § 14(b) 

purports to respect, is, in effect, “State law” for purposes of § 14(b)’s exception from 

preemption. 

 The district court relied primarily on a rule of statutory construction: “identical words 

and phrases within the same statute should normally be given the same meaning.” Powerex 

Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224, 232 (2007). Applying this rule, the court 

explained: 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 7 

[I]t makes little sense to read “State or Territorial law” as encompassing local law 

in light of the statute’s previous reference to “any State or Territory”—if “State or 

Territorial law” includes the laws of political subdivisions, then the statute must 

be read “in any State or Territory [or political subdivision thereof]” to avoid 

assigning two different meanings to “State” in the same sentence. This is not a 

logical reading . . . . 

United Automobile, 160 F. Supp. 3d at 1008. 

 Yet, it absolutely is a logical reading. In the district court’s formulation, if, as the County 

posits, “State law,” as used in § 14(b), includes the laws of political subdivisions of the State, 

then the first reference to State in § 14(b) must be read to mean “in any State or political 

subdivision thereof” to avoid assigning two different meanings to “State” in the same sentence. 

Exactly. That is the County’s argument and it is a logical and necessary product of applying the 

Powerex presumption-of-consistent-usage maxim to § 14(b), given the County’s premise. 

 Moreover, the County’s position is even stronger when we turn the formulation around. 

That is, if the first reference to “State” in § 14(b) (referring to a geographical jurisdiction) 

includes political subdivisions of the State (which it plainly must, as political subdivisions are 

components of the State, within the State, that exercise governmental power of the State), then 

the second reference to State must also be read to include political subdivisions, thereby 

necessarily excepting the law of political subdivisions from preemption as well. In other words, 

applying the Powerex presumption-of-consistent-usage maxim does not defeat the County’s 

argument, but supports it. Insofar as the presumption-of-consistent-usage maxim plays a role in 

construing § 14(b), it strongly favors the County’s position that “State” includes political 

subdivisions and that its right-to-work ordinance is not preempted by the NLRA. 

 Insofar as the district court’s construction of § 14(b) relied on the maxim to reject the 

County’s position, it is flawed. Yet, we may affirm if the district court nevertheless reached the 

correct result. 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 8 

(2) Case Law 

(a) Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier 

 Before adopting the Powerex maxim as the basis for its construction of § 14(b), the 

district court also considered and rejected as distinguishable two Supreme Court decisions 

asserted by the County. The first of these is Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 

597 (1991). In Mortier, the Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (“FIFRA”), which expressly permits “States” to regulate pesticides, does not preempt 

regulation of pesticides by local governments. The Court held that, even though the FIFRA 

provision allowing state regulation did not also expressly allow regulation by political 

subdivisions of the State, “[m]ere silence, in this context, cannot suffice to establish a ‘clear and 

manifest purpose’ to pre-empt local authority.” Id. at 607 (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator 

Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)). Further, in language directly applicable to the present 

controversy, the Court reasoned: 

The principle is well settled that local governmental units are created as 

convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the State 

as may be entrusted to them . . . in its absolute discretion. The exclusion of 

political subdivisions cannot be inferred from the express authorization to the 

“States” because political subdivisions are components of the very entity the 

statute empowers. Indeed, the more plausible reading of FIFRA’s authorization 

to the States leaves the allocation of regulatory authority to the absolute discretion 

of the States themselves, including the option of leaving local regulation of 

pesticides in the hands of local authorities. 

Id. at 607–08 (internal quotation marks, alterations and citations omitted). 

 Here, as in Mortier, we consider federal statutory language that expressly allows specific 

regulation by the States, but is silent as to regulation by political subdivisions of the States. 

Here, as in Mortier, we consider a “comprehensive regulatory statute” that does not explicitly 

preempt local regulatory authority. Id. at 601. Here, as in Mortier, we consider the meaning of a 

statutory provision where “no other textual basis for pre-emption exists.” Id. at 608. Here, as in 

Mortier, we consider Congress’s use of the term “State,” which “is not self-limiting since 

political subdivisions are merely subordinate components of the whole.” Id. at 612. And here, 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 9 

as in Mortier, we are faced with unconvincing “policy speculations,” rather than evidence of a 

“clear and manifest indication that Congress sought to supplant local authority.” Id. at 611. 

Mortier thus represents strong support for Hardin County’s argument that, as a political 

subdivision of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, it enjoys the same freedom that Kentucky does 

under § 14(b). The district court distinguished Mortier by saying “the Court’s conclusion was 

based on the specific statutory language at issue and thus was not a broad pronouncement 

regarding Congress’ use of the term ‘State’ in federal statutes.” United Automobile, 160 F. Supp. 

3d at 1009. True enough, the Mortier Court dealt with a different regulatory scheme and did not 

purport to make a broad pronouncement. But the district court failed to identify, and we fail to 

discern, any material distinction between the operative principles in the Mortier analysis and the 

instant case.1

 (b) City of Columbus v. Ours Garage and Wrecker Service 

 The second case distinguished by the district court is City of Columbus v. Ours Garage 

and Wrecker Service, Inc., 536 U.S. 424 (2002). In Ours Garage, the Court again addressed 

whether a federal law, the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”), that expressly excepted state safety 

regulatory authority from preemption, also excepted such regulations of political subdivisions of 

the State. Disproving the district court’s notion that the Mortier ruling is limited to its facts or 

the particular language of FIFRA, the Court closely followed the Mortier analysis in holding: 

Absent a clear statement to the contrary, Congress’ reference to the “regulatory 

authority of a State” should be read to preserve, not preempt, the traditional 

prerogative of the States to delegate their authority to their constituent parts. 

Ours Garage, 536 U.S. at 429 (emphasis added). How a State chooses to exercise the 

governmental powers entrusted to it, the Court observed, is in its “absolute discretion.” Id. at 

437 (quoting Mortier, 501 U.S. at 608). The Court reiterated that mere silence is insufficient to 

establish a clear and manifest purpose to preempt local authority. See also Nixon v. Missouri 

Municipal League, 541 U.S. 125, 140 (2004) (noting “that federal legislation threatening to 

 1

The Unions and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, as amici curiae, attempt to distinguish Mortier by 

arguing that the NLRA occupies the field of industrial relations regulation more comprehensively than does FIFRA, 

and that this demands that § 14(b)’s silence as to political subdivisions be construed differently. This proposition, 

colorable but unpersuasive, is addressed below in Part II.B. 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 10 

trench on the States’ arrangements for conducting their own governments should be treated with 

great skepticism, and read in a way that preserves a State’s chosen disposition of its own power, 

in the absence of [a] plain statement [by Congress]”). 

 This was the Ours Garage holding, notwithstanding that the ICA expressly preempted 

various types of regulation by a State and its political subdivisions, but excepted safety 

regulations by a State without mentioning political subdivisions; and notwithstanding that in 

several other parallel provisions excepting other types of state regulatory authority, the ICA also 

expressly excepted such authority of the State’s political subdivisions. This inconsistency made 

for a strong dissent by two justices, who would have presumed the disparate omission of the term 

“political subdivisions” in the subject provision signaled Congress’s purpose not to except local 

regulation from preemption. Yet, in reversing the Sixth Circuit, seven justices abided by the rule 

that mere silence is insufficient to justify such a presumption of congressional intent. 

Ours Garage thus represents even stronger authority for Hardin County’s position than 

Mortier. The NLRA does not expressly preempt state or local authority to prohibit unionsecurity agreements—although § 8(a)(3) provides that no federal law shall be construed to 

preclude an employer from entering into a union-security agreement. On the other hand, the 

NLRA does expressly recognize state authority to prohibit union-security agreements. Granted, 

this recognition of state authority is silent as to political subdivisions of the State. Per Ours 

Garage, this silence is to be construed as preserving state authority to delegate its governmental 

powers to its political subdivisions as it sees fit.2

 Yet, again, without directly engaging the 

Court’s reasoning in Ours Garage, the district court simply concluded that the Court’s holding 

was limited to “the specific statutory language at issue.” United Automobile, 160 F. Supp. 3d at 

1009. Finding no guidance in Mortier and Ours Garage, the district court relied on its flawed 

application of the Powerex maxim to reach a conclusion diametrically opposed to those holdings, 

 2

Hardin County, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, is one of twelve Kentucky 

counties that have adopted such right-to-work ordinances. Hardin County enacted Ordinance 300 in January 2015 

pursuant to its authority, under Kentucky Revised Statutes § 67.803, to regulate commerce and promote economic 

development. R. 5-1, Ordinance 300, Page ID 95. The lawfulness of the ordinance as a legitimate exercise of statedelegated governmental authority has not been challenged in this litigation. 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 11 

essentially presuming that Congress’s silence in § 14(b) implies an intent to preempt, not 

preserve the authority of political subdivisions. Clearly, this conclusion, too, was in error.3

 (c) CSX Transportation v. City of Plymouth 

As amicus curiae, the Commonwealth of Kentucky cites a Sixth Circuit ruling that seems 

to run counter to Mortier and Ours Garage. In CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Plymouth, 86 F.3d 

626 (6th Cir. 1996), the court considered an express exception to express preemption under the 

Federal Railway Safety Act (“FRSA”). Because the exception applied only to safety regulations 

of a “State,” the exception was summarily held not to encompass Plymouth’s municipal 

regulation: “As Plymouth is not a ‘State,’ the challenged Plymouth ordinance is not within the 

FRSA’s preemption clause exceptions.” Id. at 628. In so ruling, the court cited a line of lower 

court decisions so construing the FRSA exception provision, but did not cite any Supreme Court 

precedent, including Mortier. 

The CSX Transportation ruling predated Ours Garage. It was followed in a subsequent 

Sixth Circuit decision, Petrey v. City of Toledo, 246 F.3d 548, 562 (6th Cir. 2001), but Petrey

was essentially overruled by Ours Garage. See Mason and Dixon Lines Inc. v. Steudle, 683 F.3d 

289, 295 (6th Cir. 2012) (recognizing abrogation). So, what is the remaining significance of 

CSX Transportation? We acknowledge that the preemptive effect of each federal regulatory 

scheme (and exception thereto) is defined by its own body of case law, as Congress’s intent is 

divined with reference to the subject statutory language, rules of construction, and legislative 

history. It follows that CSX Transportation’s specific holding that the subject FRSA preemption 

exception did not encompass local regulations carries little weight in relation to our construction 

of NLRA § 14(b). However, to the extent that CSX Transportation is here relied on for the 

general proposition that “State” does not include political subdivisions, it clearly lacks any 

continuing vitality in the wake of Ours Garage. 

 3

Again, the Unions defend the district court’s ruling by arguing that the NLRA is field-preemptive, and that 

the § 14(b) exception should be read more strictly than the exception in the ICA. The question of field preemption 

is taken up below in Part II.B. Here, suffice it to say that there is precious little support in the reasoning of either 

Mortier or Ours Garage for the notion that “State” would have been given a different meaning if the comprehensive 

regulatory scheme at issue were even more comprehensive. In this regard, we note that, although the National Labor 

Relations Board has filed an amicus brief in support of the Unions’ position, it is conspicuously devoid of reference 

to Mortier and Ours Garage. 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 12 

 A better reflection of the current state of Sixth Circuit law is found in State of Tennessee 

v. FCC, 832 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2016), where the court, relying on Nixon v. Missouri Municipal 

League, 541 U.S. 125, 135–41 (2004), essentially followed the teaching of Mortier and Ours 

Garage in enforcing the “clear statement rule.” The court effectively held that absent a clear 

statement from Congress in the Telecommunications Act, the FCC lacks preemptive authority to 

“trench” on the “core sovereignty” of a state by “reorder[ing] the decision-making structure of 

[the] state and its municipalities.” State of Tennessee, 832 F.3d at 611. 

Although preemption authority does not have to be explicit, see Gregory v. 

Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 467 (1991), the authority to preempt such allocations 

must be delegated by way of a clear statement. In applying the clear statement 

rule, the federal statute should be treated with great skepticism, and read in a way 

that preserves a State’s chosen disposition of its own power, in the absence of the 

plain statement that Gregory requires. 

Id. at 613 (internal quotation omitted). Finding no such clear statement by Congress in the 

Telecommunications Act, the court held that “a state’s allocation of powers between itself and its 

subdivisions” was not preempted. Id. It follows then, pursuant to current Sixth Circuit law, that 

because Congress, in § 14(b) of the NLRA, has expressly excepted a particular type of state law 

from preemption, it can hardly be deemed to have intended to nonetheless preempt such laws of 

the State’s political subdivisions absent a clear statement to that effect. 

 (d) Kentucky State AFL-CIO v. Puckett and New Mexico Fed’n of Labor v. City of Clovis 

The briefing also includes citation to two decisions that specifically held that § 14(b) does 

not encompass laws of political subdivisions. In Kentucky State AFL-CIO v. Puckett, 

391 S.W.2d 360 (1965), the Kentucky Supreme Court summarily concluded: “We think it is not 

reasonable to believe that Congress could have intended to waive other than to major policymaking units such as states and territories, the determination of policy in such a controversial 

area as that of union-security agreements.” Id. at 362. In New Mexico Fed’n of Labor v. City of 

Clovis, 735 F. Supp. 999 (D.N.M. 1990), the court followed Puckett’s lead and held that because 

Congress intended to preempt the field, § 14(b)’s use of “State” had to be read narrowly. 

 Both of these rulings predated the Supreme Court’s Mortier and Ours Garage decisions 

and did not grapple with the Court’s fundamental rationale in those cases. Again, “[a]bsent a 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 13 

clear statement to the contrary, Congress’ reference to the ‘regulatory authority of a State’ should 

be read to preserve, not preempt, the traditional prerogative of the States to delegate their 

authority to their constituent parts.” Ours Garage, 536 U.S. at 429. Both Puckett and City of 

Clovis rely on field-preemption notions to infer Congress’s implied intent in ways rejected by the 

Court in Mortier and Ours Garage. Because it has subsequently been made clear that silence in 

referring to “State,” without differentiating political subdivisions, is insufficient to establish a 

clear and manifest purpose to preempt local authority, Puckett and City of Clovis have no 

persuasive weight. 

3. Conclusion re § 14(b) 

 In sum, contrary to the district court’s ruling, the Supreme Court’s rulings in Mortier and 

Ours Garage and the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in State of Tennessee v. FCC represent strong support 

for Hardin County’s position that § 14(b)’s use of “State” includes political subdivisions. We 

find no persuasive basis—whether in the statutory language, legislative history or rules of 

construction—for distinguishing or circumventing them. In fact, the one rule of construction in 

play—presumption of consistent usage—actually favors the same construction that Mortier, 

Ours Garage, and State of Tennessee all support. Applying their teaching, we conclude that 

§ 14(b)’s use of “State” includes political subdivisions and that Ordinance 300’s right-to-work 

protection is included in § 14(b)’s exception from preemption. 

B. Field Preemption

 Yet the Unions contend that this construction would frustrate Congress’s intent to 

preempt the field of industrial relations regulation. Because the district court concluded that 

§ 14(b) does not encompass laws of a State’s political subdivisions, but only laws adopted by the 

State itself, the court went on to consider whether, and conclude that, the NLRA preempts 

Hardin County’s right-to-work law. In Mortier, the Court summarized the ways in which federal 

law may preempt state law: 

The ways in which federal law may pre-empt state law are well established and in 

the first instance turn on congressional intent. Congress’ intent to supplant state 

authority in a particular field may be expressed in the terms of the statute. Absent 

explicit pre-emptive language, Congress’ intent to supersede state law in a given 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 14 

area may nonetheless be implicit if a scheme of federal regulation is so pervasive 

as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to 

supplement it, if the Act of Congress . . . touches a field in which the federal 

interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude 

enforcement of state laws on the same subject, or if the goals sought to be 

obtained and the obligations imposed reveal a purpose to preclude state authority. 

When considering pre-emption, we start with the assumption that the historic 

police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless 

that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress. 

Even when Congress has not chosen to occupy a particular field, pre-emption may 

occur to the extent that state and federal law actually conflict. Such a conflict 

arises when compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical 

impossibility, or when a state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and 

execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. 

It is, finally, axiomatic that for the purposes of the Supremacy Clause, the 

constitutionality of local ordinances is analyzed in the same way as that of 

statewide laws. 

Mortier, 501 U.S. at 604–05 (internal quotation marks, alterations and citations omitted). 

 There are thus three types of preemption, all of which turn on Congress’s intent. Federal 

law may be deemed to preempt state and local law (1) by explicit language; (2) implicitly, by 

virtue of pervasive federal regulation of a particular field; or (3) implicitly, by virtue of an actual 

conflict between federal and state or local regulations. Only the second of these three ways is at 

issue here. That is, there is no contention that local right-to-work laws like Hardin County’s are 

expressly preempted by the NLRA. Nor is there an argument that the ordinance is preempted 

because an employer’s compliance with it—by refraining from requiring an employee to join a 

union or pay union dues and fees—would result in violation of a federal regulation. Rather, the 

challengers of Ordinance 300 contend that Congress has manifested its intent to preempt 

implicitly by its pervasive regulation of industrial relations. Specifically, they rely on Garmon

field preemption, as defined in San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959). 

 In relevant part, Garmon provides: 

When it is clear or may fairly be assumed that the activities which a State purports 

to regulate are protected by § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, or constitute 

an unfair labor practice under § 8, due regard for the federal enactment requires 

that state jurisdiction must yield. To leave the States free to regulate conduct so 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 15 

plainly within the central aim of federal regulation involves too great a danger of 

conflict between power asserted by Congress and requirements imposed by state 

law. Nor has it mattered whether the States have acted through laws of broad 

general application rather than laws specifically directed towards the governance 

of industrial relations. Regardless of the mode adopted, to allow the States to 

control conduct which is the subject of national regulation would create potential 

frustration of national purposes. 

* * * * 

When an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the Act, the States as well as 

the federal courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor 

Relations Board if the danger of state interference with national policy is to be 

averted. 

Id. at 244, 245. Garmon preemption “is intended to preclude state interference . . . with 

enforcement of the ‘integrated scheme of regulation’ established by the NLRA.” Chamber of 

Commerce of U.S. v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60, 65 (2008) (quoting Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los 

Angeles, 475 U.S. 608, 613 (1986)). “Garmon pre-emption forbids States to ‘regulate activity 

that the NLRA protects, prohibits, or arguably protects or prohibits.’” Id. (quoting Wisconsin 

Dep’t of Industry v. Gould Inc., 475 U.S. 282, 286 (1986)). 

 Because Congress has sought to regulate industrial relations comprehensively, the States 

are implicitly denied freedom to regulate any activity that is even arguably subject to § 8 of the 

NLRA. The specific activity here at issue is employers’ freedom to enter into union security 

agreements. While § 8(a)(3) prohibits employers from discriminating based on union 

membership and even from encouraging or discouraging union membership, it also explicitly 

provides that employers may, under federal law, enter into union-security agreements without 

running afoul of these prohibitions. Hardin County’s ordinance, rendering union-security 

agreements unlawful, regulates an activity that is arguably protected under § 8(a)(3). 

 As such, under Garmon preemption, the County’s ordinance could be deemed implicitly 

preempted—but for the § 14(b) exception. For even assuming Garmon field preemption would 

otherwise apply, Congress can hardly be deemed to have implicitly intended to preempt a state 

law that it has explicitly excepted from preemption. The operation of Garmon field preemption 

to supplant the Hardin County right-to-work ordinance is thus ultimately dependent on the 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 16 

answer to the question whether § 14(b)’s explicit exception of state law from preemption 

encompasses laws of the political subdivisions of the State. 

 This conclusion is confirmed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n 

v. Schermerhorn, 375 U.S. 96 (1963). In Schermerhorn, the Court held that § 14(b) recognizes 

the power of the States to outlaw union security agreements notwithstanding Garmon

preemption: 

[Section] 14(b) gives the States power to outlaw even a union-security agreement 

that passes muster by federal standards. Where Congress gives state policy that 

degree of overriding authority, we are reluctant to conclude that it is nonetheless 

enforceable by the federal agency in Washington. 

This result on its face may seem to be at war with San Diego Bldg. Trades 

Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, decided in 1959, and holding that where action 

is “arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the Act, the States as well as the federal courts 

must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board.” 

359 U.S. at 245. 

* * * * 

Garmon, however, does not state a constitutional principle; it merely rationalizes 

the problems of coexistence between federal and state regulatory schemes in the 

field of labor relations; and it did not present the problems posed by § 14(b), viz., 

whether the Congress had precluded state enforcement of select state laws 

adopted pursuant to its authority. The purpose of Congress is the ultimate 

touchstone. 

* * * * 

The Court in Algoma Plywood & Veneer Co. v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Board, 

336 U.S. 301, 314 [(1949)] stated that “§ 14(b) was included to forestall the 

inference that federal policy was to be exclusive” on this matter of union-security 

agreements. 

* * * * 

Congress, in other words, chose to abandon any search for uniformity in dealing 

with the problems of state laws barring the execution and application of 

agreements authorized by § 14(b) and decided to suffer a medley of attitudes and 

philosophies on the subject. 

As a result of § 14(b), there will arise a wide variety of situations presenting 

problems of the accommodation of state and federal jurisdiction in the unionsecurity field. 

Schermerhorn, 375 U.S. at 103–05. 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 17 

 The Court thus recognized in Schermerhorn that even though state laws prohibiting union 

security agreements may represent an obstacle to the accomplishment of Congress’s purpose of 

promoting uniformity, they do not fall victim to Garmon field preemption because Congress, 

whose purpose is the “ultimate touchstone,” expressly provided that they are not preempted.4

 Accordingly, per the teaching of Mortier and Ours Garage, the dispositive question is 

whether Congress’s use of “State” in § 14(b) includes, beyond mere silence, indication of a clear 

and manifest purpose to preempt state authority to delegate governmental power to its political 

subdivisions. As explained above, no showing of such a clear and manifest purpose has been 

made. The parties and amici have argued at some length about the significance of dicta 

appearing in various opinions, legislative history, and policy concerns. But none of the 

arguments amounts to a showing of clear and manifest purpose rebutting the presumption arising 

from Mortier and Ours Garage that “State” includes political subdivisions of the State. They are 

the very kinds of arguments that the Supreme Court rejected in Mortier and Ours Garage. It 

follows that § 14(b)’s explicit exception of state right-to-work laws from preemption trumps 

operation of implicit field preemption. Because Hardin County’s right-to-work ordinance is 

“State law,” it is not preempted. 

C. Hiring-Hall Agreements and Dues-Checkoff Provisions

 Ordinance 300 also includes two other provisions related to its right-to-work guarantee 

that are challenged by the plaintiff Unions. The ordinance prohibits employers and unions from 

entering into so-called “hiring hall” agreements, under which prospective employees are required 

“to be recommended, approved, referred, or cleared by or through a labor organization.” R. 5-1, 

Ordinance 300, § 4(E), Page ID 96. The ordinance also prohibits so-called “dues checkoff” 

provisions, whereby employers deduct “union dues, fees and assessments or other charges” from 

 4

That this § 14(b) exception is the only exception to NLRA preemption of right-to-work laws finds facial 

support in a footnote in Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Int’l Union v. Mobil Oil Corp., 426 U.S. 407, 413 n.7 

(1976): “There is nothing in either § 14(b)’s language or legislative history to suggest that there may be applications 

of right-to-work laws which are not encompassed under § 14(b) but which are nonetheless permissible.” The parties 

dispute the significance of this footnote, but even assuming Garmon field preemption would otherwise operate to 

invalidate the right-to-work protection of Ordinance 300 if it were not encompassed within § 14(b), the fact is that 

the ordinance is “State law” under § 14(b), per the teaching of Mortier and Ours Garage, and is therefore expressly 

excepted from preemption. 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 18 

an employee’s compensation for a labor organization unless the employee, with the right to 

revoke at any time, has authorized the deduction in writing. Id. at § 5. The district court held 

that the ordinance’s prohibitions of hiring-hall agreements and dues-checkoff provisions are 

subject to preemption and are not encompassed within the § 14(b) exception. United 

Automobile, 160 F. Supp. 3d at 1013–14. On appeal, Hardin County concedes that these 

provisions do not come within the literal ambit of § 14(b), but contends that the practical effect

of hiring-hall and dues-checkoff provisions is to require union membership and is therefore at 

odds with the County’s right-to-work guarantee. The County also concedes that the extant case 

law on these questions is not supportive of its position, but argues it is neither definitive nor 

controlling. 

 In SeaPAK v. Industrial, Technical & Professional Employees, 300 F. Supp. 1197 (S.D. 

Ga. 1969), the court acknowledged that the obligation to pay dues to a union is the practical 

equivalent of requiring union membership, citing NLRB v. General Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734, 

743 (1963). Yet, the court held that a state law regulating such a dues-payment arrangement did 

not come within the § 14(b) exception and was preempted because it overlapped with, and was in 

conflict with, federal regulation under the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 

29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(4). This ruling was summarily affirmed by the Fifth Circuit, 423 F.2d 1229 

(5th Cir. 1970), and the Supreme Court, 400 U.S. 985 (1971). See also Local 514, Transport 

Workers Union v. Keating, 212 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 1327 (E.D. Okla. 2002) (following SeaPAK), 

aff’d, 358 F.3d 743 (10th Cir. 2004). 

 While Hardin County maintains that its ordinance regulation of dues checkoff provisions 

does not actually conflict with that of the LMRA, the fact remains that the activity is subject to 

regulation under the LMRA. Allowing dual regulation under federal and state law would 

undermine Congress’s purposes and contravene field preemption. The analysis set forth in 

SeaPAK is not conclusive, but it bears the Supreme Court’s imprimatur and its authority remains 

essentially unchallenged by any conflicting case law authority. 

 The same result obtains in relation to the County’s regulation of hiring-hall agreements. 

In Simms v. Local 1752, Int’l Longshoremen Ass’n, 838 F.3d 613, 619–20 (5th Cir. 2016), the 

Fifth Circuit recently held that Mississippi’s right-to-work law’s prohibition of compulsory 
No. 16-5246 UAW, et al. v. Hardin Cnty., Ky., et al. Page 19 

union membership as a condition of hiring is excepted from NLRA preemption by § 14(b), but 

the law’s regulation of hiring-hall fees paid by hired employees who are not union members—

even though requirement of such fees may encourage union membership—does not come within 

§ 14(b) and is therefore preempted because nondiscriminatory use of hiring halls is permissible 

under NLRA § 8(a)(3). See also Local 514 v. Keating, 212 F. Supp. 2d at 1326–27 (citing 

Laborers’ Int’l Union Local 107 v. Kunco, Inc., 472 F.2d 456, 458–59 (8th Cir. 1973); NLRB v. 

Tom Joyce Floors, Inc., 353 F.2d 768, 770–71 (9th Cir. 1965); NLRB v. Houston Chapter Ass’d 

Gen’l Contractors, 349 F.2d 449, 451 (5th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1026 (1966)). 

 Perceiving no sound reason to depart from the above authorities, we find no error in the 

district court’s decision to follow them. The district court properly held that the Ordinance 300 

provisions dealing with hiring-hall agreements and dues-checkoff requirements are preempted 

and unenforceable. 

III. CONCLUSION

 Accordingly, the district court’s judgment must be affirmed in part and reversed in part. 

Because the Hardin County ordinance’s right-to-work protection is expressly excepted from 

preemption by Congress in NLRA § 14(b), the district court’s judgment order invalidating the 

ordinance in this respect, is REVERSED. That is, to the extent § 4(B) of Ordinance 300 

prohibits employers from requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of 

employment, it is not preempted and invalidated by the NLRA. In all other respects, the court’s 

judgment, declaring § 4(E) and § 5 of Ordinance 300 unenforceable because not excepted from 

preemption under NLRA § 14(b), is AFFIRMED.