(Slip Opinion)
OCTOBER TERM, 2007
1
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA ET AL. v. BROWN, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 06–939. Argued March 19, 2008—Decided June 19, 2008
Organizations whose members do business with California sued to en-
join enforcement of “Assembly Bill 1889” (AB 1889), which, among
other things, prohibits employers that receive state grants or more
than $10,000 in state program funds per year from using the funds
“to assist, promote, or deter union organizing.” Cal. Govt. Code Ann.
§§16645.2(a), 16645.7(a). The District Court granted the plaintiffs
partial summary judgment, holding that the National Labor Rela-
tions Act (NLRA) pre-empts §§16645.2 and 16645.7 because they
regulate employer speech about union organizing under circum-
stances in which Congress intended free debate. The Ninth Circuit
reversed, concluding that Congress did not intend to preclude States
from imposing such restrictions on the use of their own funds.
Held: Sections 16645.2 and 16645.7 are pre-empted by the NLRA.
Pp. 4–16.
(a) The NLRA contains no express pre-emption provision, but this
Court has held pre-emption necessary to implement federal labor pol-
icy where, inter alia, Congress intended particular conduct to “be un-
regulated because left ‘to be controlled by the free play of economic
forces.’ ” Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n, 427
U. S. 132, 140. Pp. 4–5.
(b) Sections 16645.2 and 16645.7 are pre-empted under Machinists
because they r