Latest Post

Reuters on the Implications of Mulhall

Published December 11th, 2013 -

Amanda Becker and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters have a good piece today on the implications of the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Mulhall. In the article, Professor Sachs stresses that the Eleventh Circuit ruling that will remain in place was very narrow, and as a result “there’s no reason for unions or employers to […] More »

 

Latest Post

Further Thoughts on the Implications of the Mulhall Dismissal

Published December 11th, 2013 -

In my quick reaction to yesterday’s dismissal in Mulhall, I wrote that “as long as CA11’s decision stands, the specter of expensive and difficult litigation will hover over neutrality/bargaining agreements in many circuits, and will indeed chill the making of those agreements.”  With more time and a day’s reflection, I now […] More »

 

Latest Post

Mulhall Dismissed!

Published December 10th, 2013 -

In a post published in August (and republished in November), I expressed puzzlement about the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Mulhall.  “I am beginning to think that the procedural hurdles to affirmance are so great that the grant might have been imprudent,” I argued, because the case is possibly moot, because […] More »

 

Latest Post

Loans, Deliveries and Money in Mulhall

Published December 4th, 2013 -

In Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall, the parties have asked the Supreme Court to interpret §302 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), which provides that an employer may not “pay, lend, or deliver… any money or other thing of value” to a union. Unite Here claims that the […] More »

 

Latest Post

The WSJ's Legal Mistake on Mulhall

Published November 19th, 2013 -

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page argued last week that the Supreme Court should hold in favor of Mulhall and declare organizing agreements “thing[s] of value” that employers may not “pay, lend, or deliver” to unions.  In the course of making this argument, the Journal makes a significant legal error.  […] More »

 

Latest Post

CATO's Trevor Burrus on the "Niggling Problem” in Mulhall

Published November 14th, 2013 -

Trevor Burrus, a Research Fellow at the CATO Institute Center for Constitutional Studies, writes in with this comment on yesterday’s oral argument in Mulhall: Thank you to Jack for letting me offer my thoughts on Mulhall. As a participant in a moot court with Mulhall’s attorney, William L. Messenger of the […] More »

 

Latest Post

Another Reaction to the Mulhall Argument

Published November 13th, 2013 -

Here’s another very quick reaction to the oral argument in Mulhall. One of more the interesting themes in today’s oral argument was developed during an exchange between Justice Scalia and William Messenger, the attorney for Respondent Mulhall.  Justice Scalia was calling attention to something that the briefing in the case […] More »

 

Latest Post

Quick Reactions to Mulhall Argument

Published November 13th, 2013 -

I am traveling and have only a moment now to comment on today’s oral argument in Mulhall.  After reading through the transcript once, my quick initial reactions are as follows. It is always hazardous to predict ultimate disposition from oral argument, but I would be shocked if the Court agreed with Respondent that […] More »

 

Latest Post

Excellent Salon Piece on Mulhall

Published November 13th, 2013 -

Salon‘s Josh Eidelson has a great piece today on Mulhall, calling it a “huge under-the-radar case.” Eidelson quotes Ben Sachs’ work here at On Labor noting that “the case could effectively outlaw union organizing (or, at least, outlaw effective union organizing).”   More »