Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority | |
---|---|
Decided May 18, 2023 | |
Full case name | Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority |
Docket no. | 21-1454 |
Citations | 598 U.S. ___ (more) |
Holding | |
The Federal Labor Relations Authority had jurisdiction over a State National Guard labor dispute because a state National Guard acts as a federal agency for the purpose of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute when it hires and supervises dual-status technicians serving in their civilian role. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Thomas |
Dissent | Alito, joined by Gorsuch |
Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Federal Labor Relations Authority had jurisdiction over a state National Guard labor dispute because a state National Guard acts as a federal agency for the purpose of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute when it hires and supervises dual-status technicians serving in their civilian role.[1][2]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]External links
[edit]- Text of Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, No. 21-1454, 598 U.S. ___ (2023) is available from: Justia
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain. "[T]he Court is unanimously of opinion that no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this Court." Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 668 (1834)