On July 31, 2025, Hood River Distillers, Inc. filed a petition for writ of certiorari imploring the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling of the D. C. Circuit. The D. C. Circuit had affirmed a National Labor Relations Board Ruling that Hood River had failed to comply with its bargaining obligations even though the Union had allegedly engaged in tactics to delay bargaining for over a year.
Hood River is calling into question the D. C. Circuit’s reliance on an NLRB interpretation of what Hood River says is an unclear substantial evidence standard under the Administrative Procedure Act. The writ requests the Supreme Court to provide clarity as to what substantial evidence means and what it requires. Hood River argues the D. C. Circuit “stretches administrative deference past its breaking point.” In light of the landmark Loper Bright decision in June of 2024, no longer requiring federal courts to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of “ambiguous” statutes, Hood River’s petition declares“[t]his case presents an important question regarding the meaning of ‘substantial evidence’ review and the outer limits of judicial deference to the Board.”
A month after the Loper Bright decision, the D. C. Circuit was the first federal appeals court to consider it application to the judicial review of an NLRB ruling. On July 5, 2024, in Hospital de la Concepcion v. NLRB, the D. C. Circuit reiterated deference was necessary when reviewing certain aspects of Board decisions. It stated a “very high degree of deference” was warranted, indicating it would set aside a Board order only “when it departs from established precedent without reasoned justification, or when the Board’s factual determinations are not supported by substantial evidence.” (emphasis added)
Now, a year later, the D. C. Circuit is still deferring to NLRB interpretations. The D. C. Circuit—which has jurisdiction to hear any appeal of a NLRB decision—and its continued deference to the Board’s decisions suggests Loper Bright does not hold much weight when this particular court is reviewing rulings by this particular administrative agency. Indeed, Hood River argues that the D. C. Circuit erred in its deference when it concluded that it had “no choice but to affirm” the NLRB.
This summer, the Supreme Court, in its McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson Corporation decision, has already reiterated that Loper Bright requires federal courts to independently determine the meaning of statutes and only apply “appropriate respect” to an agency’s interpretation.
Interestingly, Hood River does not invoke Loper Bright in its petition to the Supreme Court, but its ramifications are clearly at play.
What does this mean going forward? Is the D. C. Circuit going to continue in its deference of NLRB rulings in spite of the land’s highest court indicating that federal courts should not automatically defer to administrative agencies? Will the Supreme Court choose to weigh in specifically on the question of deference to NLRB decisions? A response to Hood River’s petition is due September 2, 2025.
We will continue to observe how this tension plays out.
[View source.]
