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 policy where, inter alia, Congress intended particular conduct to “be unregulated because left ‘to be controlled by the free play of economic forces.’ ” Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n, 427 U. S. 132 . Pp. 4–5.

    (b) Sections 16645.2 and 16645.7 are pre-empted under Machinists because they regulate within “a zone protected and reserved for market freedom.” Building & Constr. Trades Council v. Associated Builders & Contractors of Mass./R. I., Inc., 507 U. S. 218 . In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act amended the NLRA by, among other things, adding §8(c), which protects from National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regulation noncoercive speech by both unions and employers about labor organizing. The section both responded to prior NLRB rulings that employers’ attempts to persuade employees not to organize amounted to coercion prohibited as an unfair labor practice by the previous version of §8 and manifested a “congressional intent to encourage free debate on issues dividing labor and management.” Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U. S. 53 . Congress’ express protection of free debate forcefully buttresses the pre-emption analysis in this case. California’s policy judgment that partisan employer speech necessarily interferes with an employee’s choice about union representation is the same policy judgment that Congress renounced when it amended the NLRA to preclude regulation of noncoercive speech as an unfair labor practice. To the extent §§16645.2 and 16645.7 actually further AB 1889’s express goal, they are unequivocally pre-empted. Pp. 5–8.

    (c) The Ninth Circuit’s reasons for concluding that Machinists did not pre-empt §§16645.2 and 16645.7—(1) that AB 1889’s spending restrictions apply only to the use of state funds, not to their receipt; (2) that Congress did not leave the zone of activity free from all regulation, in that the NLRB still regulates employer speech on the eve of union elections; and (3) that California modeled AB 1889 on federal statutes, e.g., the Workforce Investment Act—are not persuasive. Pp. 8–16.

463 F. 3d 1076, reversed and remanded.

    Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined.

Case below: Chamber Of Commerce Of The US v. Lockyer (9th Cir 09/21/2006) (en banc) (12-3). 
Previous (withdrawn) panel decision: Chamber Of Commerce Of The US v. Lockyer (9th Cir 08/06/2005)
Oral argument:  March 19, 2008. [Transcript] The Solicitor General  participates in this oral argument as amicus curiae in support of petitioner Chamber of Commerce. 
Official docket sheet 
Certiorari granted 11/20/2007.

Question presented:  

Is the State of California’s regulation of noncoercive employer speech about union organizing, California Assembly Bill 1889, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 16645.2, 16645.7, preempted by federal labor law? 

Certiorari Documents: 

• Petition for Writ of Certiorari 
• Brief of respondents Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General of California, et al. in opposition
• Reply of petitioners Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et al.
• Brief amici curiae of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc., et al.
• Brief amici curiae of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., et al.
• Brief amicus curiae of Associated Builders and Contractors of California
• Brief amicus curiae of the United States, expressing the view that certiorari should be granted 

Briefs on the Merits: 

• Brief of petitioners Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. 
• Brief of respondent Brown (State of California) 
• Brief of respondents American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations and California Labor Federation  
• Reply Brief of petitioners Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al.  
• Brief for the United States supporting Petitioners 
• Brief for the Health Care Association of New York State, the New York Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, New York State Health Care Facilities, NYSARC, and United Cerebral Palsy Associations of New York State in Support of Petitioner 
• Joint Brief for the Associated Builders and Contractors, the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation, the American Health Care Association and National Center for Assisted Living, the Society for Human Resource Management, the Council on Labor Law Equality, HR Policy Association, Associated Builders and Contractors of California, and Members of the California Small Business Alliance in Support of Petitioner 
• Brief for the American Hospital Association in Support of Petitioner 
• Brief for the CATO Institute in Support of Petitioner 
• Brief for the United States in Support of Petitioner 
• Brief for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and Sherwood Cox in Support of Petitioner 
• Brief for AARP, the Association for Gerontology and Human Development in Historically Black Colleges and Universities, the California Alliance for Retired Americans, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc., the Gray Panthers Project Fund, the National Citizens Coalition for Nursing Home Reform, Older Women's League, and the Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute in Support of Respondent 
• Brief for the States of New York, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Wyoming in Support of Respondents 

Counsel:

• For Petitioner Chamber of Commerce: Willis J. Goldsmith; Jones Day; 222 East 41st Street; New York, NY  10017; wgoldsmith@jonesday.com; (212) 326-3649. 
• For Respondent Brown : Angela Sierra; Deputy Attorney General; 300 S. Spring Street, Suite 1702; Los Angeles, CA  90013; angela.sierra@doj.ca.gov; (213) 620-6312. 
• For Respondents American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Relations and the California Labor Federation: Scott A. Kronland; Altshuler Berzon LLP; 177 Post Street, Suite 300; San Francisco, CA  94108; skronland@altber.com; (415) 421-7151.