U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Garth Drabinsky’s Union Blacklist Case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to review Broadway producer Garth Drabinsky’s lawsuit challenging the Actors’ Equity Association’s decision to include him on a “do not work” list.

The court’s refusal effectively upholds a lower court ruling that found the actors’ union had acted within the bounds of federal labor law, ending Drabinsky’s long-running effort to reverse the boycott and clear his professional name. BroadwayWorld previously reported on his supreme court filings.

Drabinsky, best known for producing acclaimed Broadway hits such as Ragtime and a revival of Show Boat, originally filed his lawsuit in 2022 after the Actors’ Equity Association placed him on its blacklist. The union’s designation barred its members from participating in Drabinsky-led productions, effectively preventing him from producing union-affiliated theatrical productions.

The boycott stemmed from Equity’s allegations that performers involved in the Broadway musical Paradise Square were not properly compensated. Cast members had reportedly complained of unpaid wages, as well as missing health and retirement benefits. In response, Equity argued it was protecting its members’ interests by naming Drabinsky on its “do not work” list.

Drabinsky denied the accusations, insisting that he was not a signatory to the relevant collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and, therefore, could not have breached its terms. He contended that Equity’s claims were unfounded and that the union’s actions constituted an unlawful boycott meant to stifle his future prospects in the entertainment industry. After lower courts dismissed his case, he escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Throughout the litigation, Drabinsky’s legal team advanced antitrust arguments, asserting that Equity’s actions went beyond legitimate labor interests. Under federal antitrust law, unions often enjoy certain exemptions if their conduct is genuinely aimed at serving their membership’s labor goals. However, Drabinsky’s attorneys argued that Equity’s conduct was rooted in “demonstrably false” premises and that the union should not be granted blanket immunity.

Citing landmark cases such as H.A. Artists & Associates, Inc. v. Actors’ Equity Association (1981) and American Federation of Musicians v. Carroll (1968), Drabinsky’s counsel maintained that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit misapplied legal precedents. According to Drabinsky, factual issues - such as the true extent of his control over payroll decisions - were improperly decided at the pleading stage, without a full evidentiary hearing.

In July, the 2nd Circuit upheld the lawsuit’s dismissal, reinforcing the principle that when a union’s conduct is directed toward legitimate labor objectives, it falls under a statutory labor exemption from antitrust scrutiny. Drabinsky’s petition argued that this exemption should not protect what he claimed was a misapplication of union power. The Supreme Court, however, denied his petition without comment, leaving the appellate ruling intact.