## Facts

- New York Racing Association, Inc. (NYRA) operated thoroughbred racing and pari-mutuel wagering at three New York racetracks and employed roughly 1,700 workers.
- NYRA’s operations affected interstate commerce and generated substantial revenue, but labor relations were historically regulated by the New York State Labor Relations Board because the NLRB had long declined jurisdiction over horse and dog racing.
- Under NLRA § 14(c)(1), the NLRB may, in its discretion, decline jurisdiction over classes or categories of employers when, in the Board’s opinion, the effect on commerce is not sufficiently substantial.
- After notice-and-comment rulemaking in 1968, the NLRB adopted 29 C.F.R. § 103.3, stating it would not assert jurisdiction in proceedings involving the horseracing or dogracing industries.
- In 1979 and again in 1980, NYRA petitioned the NLRB to assert jurisdiction over NYRA and the horse-racing industry; the Board denied both petitions based on Rule 103.3.
- NYRA filed suit in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, contending the Board’s refusal was unlawful under the NLRA and APA and lacked adequate investigation and findings.
- The district court denied the NLRB’s motion to dismiss, held the Board’s refusal unlawful for inadequate factual support, and remanded to the Board for further proceedings.
- The NLRB and the state labor board appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court has subject-matter jurisdiction to review the NLRB’s decision, under NLRA § 14(c)(1) and Rule 103.3, to decline jurisdiction over the horse-racing industry.
2. Whether the NLRB’s jurisdictional declination is “committed to agency discretion by law” and therefore unreviewable under the APA.
3. Whether any narrow exception permits district-court review of this kind of NLRB representation/jurisdiction determination, including the exception associated with *Leedom v. Kyne*.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the district court.
- The court held the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the NLRB’s decisions declining to assert jurisdiction over horse racing.
- The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 14(c)(1) grants the NLRB broad discretion to decline jurisdiction over classes or categories of employers when, in the Board’s opinion, the effect on commerce is not sufficiently substantial.
- A decision by the NLRB to decline jurisdiction under § 14(c)(1), including through an industry-wide rule like 29 C.F.R. § 103.3, is a policy judgment generally “committed to agency discretion by law” and not subject to ordinary APA review.
- District courts generally may not review NLRB representation or jurisdictional determinations outside the NLRA’s statutory review scheme; review typically occurs only through unfair-labor-practice proceedings under NLRA §§ 10(e)–(f).
- The narrow district-court exception for Board action exceeding delegated authority and violating a clear statutory command does not apply where the statute affirmatively authorizes the Board to exercise discretion to decline jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the NLRB’s industry-wide decision to decline NLRA jurisdiction over horse racing pursuant to § 14(c)(1) and Rule 103.3 was discretionary and not subject to district-court review, requiring dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.


N.Y. Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. NLRB, 708 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1983)