Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

9 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

so because the entire point of Garmon’s arguably-protected
test is to permit the court to assess the facts and relevant
labor law in service of a gatekeeping function.  The answer 
to  the  Garmon  question  simply  (and  solely)  establishes 
whether the court can continue to entertain a lawsuit that 
relates to the challenged strike conduct, or whether the le-
gal action must be suspended to allow the Board to make
an  initial  assessment  of  the  matter.    The  court  evaluates 
the existing evidence and the law for a specific reason: to
determine whether the lawsuit attacks arguably-protected 
conduct such that entertaining the legal action will inter-
fere with the Board’s prerogative to develop the facts and
adjudicate the merits of the dispute as part of the Board’s 
broader authority to develop national labor law.

If the General Counsel investigates the matter and files
a complaint with the Board alleging that the union’s con-
duct is protected, it becomes indisputable that the pending 
legal  action  might  interfere  with  the  Board’s  authority.
Thus, a General Counsel complaint relieves the court of the 
burden  of  having  to  make  the  arguably-protected  assess-
ment based on its own understanding of the evidence and 
labor law—it is “arguable” that the union’s conduct is pro-
tected because the General Counsel is arguing just that.  To 
be  sure,  we  have  said  that  the  arguably-protected  test  is
“not without substance” and is “not satisfied by a conclusory
assertion of pre-emption.”  Davis, 476 U. S., at 394.  But an 
allegation from the Board’s  General Counsel after a thor-
ough investigation is a far cry from a “conclusory assertion” 
of protection.2 

What  is  more,  by  virtue  of  the  General  Counsel’s  com-
plaint, the Board is, at this very moment, exercising its au-
thority to adjudicate the merits of this dispute.  On January 
—————— 

2 This is not to suggest that the General Counsel’s complaint is the end 
of  the  story,  as  the  Board  may  ultimately  disagree  with  the  factual  or
legal basis of that pleading.  But the complaint is surely sufficient to es-
tablish arguable protection, such that a court should stay its hand.