National Labor Relations Board v. Teamsters Union Local No. 70

ORDER

Teamsters Union Local No. 70 (“Union”) has moved for relief from several of our judgments pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Under Rule 60(b), a party seeking modification “bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.” Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 , 112 S.Ct. 748 , 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992). The Union argues that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2218, 192 L.Ed.2d 236 (2016), is a significant change in circumstances that warrants revision of our judgments. We disagree and deny the motion.

We assume, without deciding, that Reed changed the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence in some respects. But it did not do so in a way that matters here. When faced with a constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court has not disturbed the National Labor Relations Act’s prohibition against peaceful secondary picketing. NLRB v. Retail Store Emps. Union, Local 1001, 447 U.S. 607 , 100 S.Ct. 2372 , 65 L.Ed.2d 377 (1980). The Court has recognized that picketing might have a coercive effect, not entitling it to full First Amendment…