OnLabor

Law. Workers. Organizing.

Editorials

Respondents’ Amicus Briefs in Mulhall

Jack Goldsmith

Jack Goldsmith is the Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he teaches and writes about national security law, international law, internet law, and, recently, labor history.  Before coming to Harvard, Professor Goldsmith served as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel from 2003-2004, and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense from 2002-2003.

At least two Amicus brief were filed yesterday in Mulhall support of Respondents.  Here is the brief by the Council on Labor Law Equality.  And here is the brief by the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center (NFIB Legal Center) and the Cato Institute.  Oral argument is November 13.

UPDATE: There is a third amicus brief in Mulhall on Respondents’ side: This one, filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence

Daily News & Commentary

Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all

OnLabor In The News

Browse all

More From OnLabor

See more

Tracking Attacks on the NLRB: Fifth Circuit Finds NLRB Removal Protections Unconstitutional

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that removal protections for NLRB Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and Board Members are unconstitutional. This ruling affirmed district court injunctions that halted unfair labor practice proceedings against three companies: SpaceX, Energy Transfer, and Findhelp. The Fifth Circuit held that being subject to an unconstitutional […]

Ruelas v. County of Alameda — California Pretrial Detainees Denied Minimum Wage for Corporate Labor (Part 3)

In Ruelas v. County of Alameda, the Supreme Court of California denied pretrial detainees’ state minimum wage claim, reasoning that section 4019.3 of the state’s Penal Code — capping jail laborers’ wages at two dollars per day — instead governed.  The first part of this three-part series discussed the California Supreme Court’s holding and reasoning.  The second part gave a history of California’s constitution and jail labor in the state, concluding that the two-dollar daily wage cap could not have applied to plaintiffs, who were pretrial detainees performing unpaid labor for a corporation.  

Ruelas v. County of Alameda — California Pretrial Detainees Denied Minimum Wage for Corporate Labor (Part 2)

In Ruelas v. County of Alameda, the Supreme Court of California held that pretrial detainees forced to labor for a corporation are ineligible for a minimum wage under the state’s Labor Code.  The court construed Penal Code section 4019.3 broadly, interpreting it as incompatible with California’s Labor Code. The court concluded that the Penal Code prevents pretrial detainees from earning more than two dollars per day for their labor, absent a local ordinance.  

Enjoy OnLabor’s fresh takes on the day’s labor news, right in your inbox.

Sections

Connect