Section 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4), prohibits unions from targeting neutral parties, often referred to as secondary employers, to cease doing business with other persons. In this action where two unions used and threatened to use lobbying and litigation to financially harm secondary employers, the questions presented are:

1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that the First Amendment and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protect the unions' actions despite those actions violating Section 8(b)(4), a holding that is contrary to decisions of the Second, Third, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits?

2. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine does not protect serial sham petitioning where a party asserts a series of challenges without regard for their merits and for an improper purpose. The Ninth Circuit held that the unions' long history of using environmental, land-use, and zoning laws to block developments until developers agreed to labor agreements is not serial sham petitioning. Did the Ninth Circuit err in this holding, which conflicts with decisions of the Fourth, Second, and Seventh Circuits?

3. Should this Court reject the holdings of the Ninth and First Circuits and instead agree with the Second, Fifth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits that, under Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010), the procedures authorized by state anti-SLAPP statutes do not apply in federal courts?

Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that the First Amendment and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protect the unions' actions despite those actions violating Section 8(b)(4), and did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that the unions' long history of using environmental, land-use, and zoning laws to block developments is not serial sham petitioning?