On the last day of the term, the Supreme Court issued one of the most anticipated decisions of recent years, Janus v. AFSCME. As widely expected, a five-justice majority overturned Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) and held that unions could not require public-sector employees to pay “agency fees” that would be used to … Continue reading Unions and Free Speech—The Janus Decision
Justice Gorsuch wrote the two opinions announced earlier this week. The first, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, was a 5-4 decision, and it upheld the ability of employers to require their workers to settle employment disputes through individual arbitration rather than by collective suits or arbitrations. This holding reversed the National Labor Relations Board’s determination … Continue reading Opinions: Arbitration Agreements in Employment Contracts and Sovereign Immunity for Indian Tribes
In one of the most-anticipated cases of the Term, the Supreme Court will reconsider a 40-year-old precedent regarding the intersection of labor law and the First Amendment. In 1977, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Court ruled that under the First Amendment, public school teachers could be required to pay union fees, known … Continue reading Labor Law and the First Amendment: Janus v. AFSCME
Senator Elizabeth Warren is worried about conflicts of interest on the Supreme Court. Unlike all other federal courts, the Supreme Court has no formal code of conduct. Supreme Court justices are largely on their own when it comes to off-the-court activities and deciding when to recuse because of a conflict of interest. In a Politico article titled … Continue reading Senator Warren, the Supreme Court, and Judicial Ethics
The Supreme Court has just announced that it will hear eleven new cases in the Term that begins on Monday. Between the end of June and the beginning of September every year, the Supreme Court is on recess. Over the summer, many of the Justices travel or teach. New law clerks begin work as well, … Continue reading New Cases for the Court: The September 2017 Long Conference
On June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court declared the recent use of presidential recess appointment power unconstitutional in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. Professor Sanford Greenberg (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains this highly technical, yet very important, ruling.
Although Justices Breyer and Scalia ended up on the same side in today’s landmark decision on the President’s recess appointment power, they offered starkly opposing views on the question of whether the past practice of the executive can resolve this constitutional question.
Harris v. Quinn
Harris v. Quinn is a labor case out of Illinois that questions a tenet of union membership. With its potentially far-reaching consequences, Professor Martin Malin (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the issues at stake before the Supreme Court.
NLRB v. Noel Canning
In January 2014, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. Even though this case seems technical at first glance, its wide-ranging impact could affect the political process and the functioning ability of a partisan US government.
Professor Carolyn Shapiro (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the case and its implications.
Case: Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall This week, the Supreme Court ruled that Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall had been improvidently granted and thus dismissed the case. But what does that mean for the law? The results are unclear. Professor César F. Rosado Marzán of Chicago-Kent College of Law, who discussed Mulhall for … Continue reading Unite Here v. Mulhall Dismissal