In Today’s News and Commentary, the Ohio Governor vetoes a bill to weaken child labor laws, Utah Lawmakers repeal a ban on public-sector bargaining, and the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case involving jurisdiction over post-arbitration award motions.

Bucking the trend of weakening child labor protections, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine vetoed a bill last week that would have extended the number of hours that employers can schedule 14- and 15-year-olds to work. Senate Bill 50 (SB50), which passed the Ohio Senate 24-9 and the Ohio House 62-30, would have allowed children under 16 to work until 9 p.m. year-round, with their parents’ consent. Federal law currently prohibits children 16 and under from working later than 7 p.m. during the school year. Supporters of SB50 praised the measures as providing more flexibility for working children’s schedules, but a long list of advocates in the child health and welfare, education, organized labor, and economic justice fields publicly urged Governor DeWine to oppose the bill. Children can still work up to 9:00 p.m. during the summer months and during any school break longer than five days in duration.

In a win for organizers and Utah workers, earlier this week lawmakers voted to repeal HB267, which prohibited public-sector collective bargaining in the state. As Elyse reported in February, Governor Spencer Cox signed the bill amidst protests outside his office. HB267 banned collective bargaining for teachers, police officers, fire-fighters, among other public employees, sparking heavy backlash from labor unions both in and beyond Utah. In June, organizers and opponents of the law gathered more than double the number of required signatures to put the issue to voters in a ballot initiative in 2026. In a special session dedicated to discussing federal court decisions about redistricting and the ballot initiative, the state House of Representatives voted 60-9 in favor of repealing the ban, while the Senate voted 26-1 in favor. In response to a colleague who criticized the repeal during the special session, Rep. Teuscher shared a moment from a town hall that stuck with him: “We had a teacher raise their hand and essentially say, ‘every time the legislature goes into session, I’m on suicide watch.’” Rep. Jordan Teuscher, a sponsor of both HB267 and its repeal, stated that the original legislation “was good policy” but ultimately “overshadowed by misinformation and unnecessary division.”

Finally, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Adrian Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties et al., a case challenging the scope of federal-court jurisdiction to confirm or vacate arbitration awards. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, parties may ask a court to compel arbitration (Section 4), to conform or enforce an arbitration award (Section 9), or to vacate or modify an award (Sections 10 and 11). In the 2022 case Badgerow v. Walters, the Supreme Court held that a federal court may exercise jurisdiction only if the application under Sections 9 and 10 establish diversity or federal-question jurisdiction on its face, meaning that a court cannot exercise jurisdiction simply on the basis that the underlying dispute would have been justiciable in court. Jules presents a variation on this question about whether a court that initially exercises jurisdiction over an underlying dispute but stays the case pending arbitration can ultimately exercise jurisdiction over a subsequent application to confirm or vacation the arbitration award. The Second Circuit has held that the initial exercise of jurisdiction serves as a “jurisdictional anchor,” whereas the Fourth Circuit has held that a court must establish an independent basis for jurisdiction over a Section 9 or 10 application. Unlike Jules, the parties in Badgerow initiated and completed arbitration before resorting to a federal court. While the underlying dipute in Jules stems from a discrimination claim, the outcome in this case will have wide reaching consequences for other areas of the law, including FLSA and state wage and hour claims.