## Facts

- Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation owned and operated a shopping mall in Tampa, Florida.
- A mall tenant hired a nonunion contractor that the Florida Gulf Coast Building and Construction Trades Council claimed paid substandard wages and benefits.
- The Trades Council, without picketing or patrolling, peacefully distributed handbills at mall entrances.
- The handbills urged the public not to shop at the mall’s stores until the mall owner committed to using contractors paying fair wages on mall construction.
- DeBartolo filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging the handbilling violated NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), which prohibits unions from “threaten[ing], coerc[ing], or restrain[ing]” a person with an object of forcing it to cease doing business with another.

## Issues

1. Whether peaceful consumer handbilling urging the public not to patronize neutral retailers constitutes “threaten[ing], coerc[ing], or restrain[ing]” under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
2. Whether the statute should be construed narrowly to avoid serious First Amendment questions raised by regulating peaceful, truthful handbilling.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the judgment denying enforcement of the NLRB’s order.
- The Court held that § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) does not reach the Trades Council’s peaceful, truthful handbilling urging a consumer boycott.
- The Court declined to decide the First Amendment question, construing the statute to avoid serious constitutional difficulties.
- The Court rejected the NLRB’s view that a request for a total consumer boycott, without picketing or similar conduct, is inherently coercive within the meaning of the statute.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute is susceptible to more than one plausible interpretation, courts should adopt a construction that avoids serious constitutional problems unless that reading is plainly contrary to Congress’s intent.
- “Threaten, coerce, or restrain” in NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) targets secondary-pressure tactics with coercive force (such as picketing and related conduct), not peaceful dissemination of information to consumers.
- Peaceful, non-misleading handbilling directed to the public, unaccompanied by picketing, patrolling, obstruction, violence, or overt threats, is not “coercion” within § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
- Deference to the NLRB’s statutory interpretations is limited where the agency’s construction would create serious constitutional concerns and an alternative, fairly possible construction exists.

## Conclusion

The Court construed NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) not to prohibit peaceful, truthful consumer handbilling urging a boycott of neutral businesses, thereby rejecting the NLRB’s expansive reading of “threaten, coerce, or restrain” and avoiding substantial First Amendment questions.


Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988)