A federal district court recently dealt a significant setback to state efforts to fill perceived gaps in federal labor law enforcement, permanently blocking New York’s so-called “NLRB trigger” law and reaffirming the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) exclusive authority over most private-sector labor relations matters.
Enacted in 2025, the law sought to dramatically expand the jurisdiction of New York’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), an agency that traditionally oversees the public sector. Under the legislation, PERB would have assumed authority over many private-sector labor disputes whenever the NLRB was deemed “unable” to act effectively. The measure was designed as a response to concerns that staffing shortages, vacancies, and litigation over the NLRB’s structure had impaired the agency’s ability to process cases.
In this challenge brought by Amazon, U.S. District Judge Eric Komitee permanently enjoined enforcement of the statute. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, the court concluded that Congress entrusted regulation of conduct arguably protected or prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act to the NLRB, not state agencies. Judge Komitee rejected New York’s argument that unusual circumstances justified an exception to federal preemption, writing that the court could not “invent a new exception” to established Supreme Court precedent.
The ruling is notable not only because it invalidates New York’s law, but also because it casts doubt on similar efforts elsewhere. Several states have explored or enacted legislation intended to create state-level alternatives. California and Washington adopted measures with similar objectives, while Massachusetts has considered doing so. Each effort has been met with legal challenges arguing that federal labor law preempts state intervention.
To date, courts have generally been skeptical of these state initiatives. New York’s law was first blocked by a preliminary injunction in November 2025 before being permanently struck down this summer. Other pending challenges similarly rely on the long-established Garmon preemption doctrine, which has historically prevented states from regulating labor relations matters entrusted to the NLRB.
For employers, the decision provides an important reaffirmation of the fundamental principle that private-sector labor relations generally remain governed by a uniform federal framework rather than a patchwork of state policies. Although states may continue searching for ways to address perceived shortcomings in federal labor law enforcement, the New York decision suggests that courts remain reluctant to permit state agencies to assume authority Congress assigned to the NLRB.
About the author
Sean P. Redmond
Sean P. Redmond is Vice President, Labor Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
