| Litigants: | Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles |
| Arguedate: | December 4 |
| Argueyear: | 1985 |
| Decidedate: | April 1 |
| Decideyear: | 1986 |
| Fullname: | Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles |
| Usvol: | 475 |
| Uspage: | 608 |
| Parallelcitations: | 106 S. Ct. 1395; 89 L. Ed. 2d 616 |
| Holding: | The city's action in conditioning petitioner's franchise renewal on the settlement of the labor dispute is preempted by the NLRA. |
| Majority: | Blackmun |
| Joinmajority: | Burger, Brennan, White, Marshall, Powell, Stevens, O'Connor |
| Dissent: | Rehnquist |
Golden State Transit Corp v City of Los Angeles, 475 U.S. 608 (1986), is a US labor law case, concerning the scope of federal preemption against state law for labor rights.
Golden State Transit Corp claimed that the City of Los Angeles was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 from refusing to renew its franchise license to operate taxicabs in the city. During its application, its cab drivers went on strike for higher wages and better working conditions. The Teamsters Union put pressure on the city to not renew the license. Because the dispute was not settled, the franchise expired. The Federal District Court held that the city was entitled to not renew the license. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment. Golden State Transit Corp appealed.
A majority of the Supreme Court held that Los Angeles was not entitled to refuse to renew a taxi company's franchise license because the Teamsters Union had pressured it not to until a dispute was resolved. Blackmun J gave the judgment.
Rehnquist J dissented, saying the following.