Yet William Gould, a former NLRB chairman and professor emeritus at Stanford University, said Thursday that the ruling was not as bad for workers as he had thought it would be.

“The ruling, while allowing for suits in state court, emphasizes the peculiar facts of this case and appears to continue to protect strikes which are timed to harm the employer,” Gould said. “No strike is worth its salt if it can’t be timed to hurt the employer.”

In her dissent, Brown Jackson agreed with her fellow Supreme Court justices that workers’ ability to strike is not “unlimited,” but said that the circumstances of the case show that “the union’s conduct was at least arguably protected” by the NLRA.