This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (case No. 00‑1595).
According to Petitioner, the case concerns whether awarding back pay to an undocumented alien who was never legally present conflicts with immigration law and the Court’s prior holding in Sure‑Tan.
Background and question before the Court
The petitioner argues that the issue is whether the award of back pay to an undocumented alien who never was legally present or authorized to work conflicts with the Court’s holding in Sure‑Tan and with immigration laws and policies.
The respondent contends that the Board’s position is fatally flawed because it adheres to its physical‑availability doctrine.
The passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in 1986 is relevant to the discussion.
According to Justice, justices asked whether Title VII applies to the case.
According to Justice (unspecified), according to Justice (unspecified), justices asked whether deference should be given to the views of the Attorney General of the United States, who is responsible for enforcing the statutes.
According to Justice O'Connor, justice O'Connor questioned whether back‑pay awards to illegal workers could create incentives that run contrary to immigration policy.
According to Justice Scalia, justices asked whether mitigation of back‑pay awards is possible.
- [1] 0b5736fd425502686e11-r1-64adf5c7e0fbd6b4.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 0b5736fd425502686e11-r1-64adf5c7e0fbd6b4.pdf, p. 4
- [3] 0b5736fd425502686e11-r1-64adf5c7e0fbd6b4.pdf, p. 4
- [4] 0b5736fd425502686e11-r1-64adf5c7e0fbd6b4.pdf, p. 18
- [5] 0b5736fd425502686e11-r1-64adf5c7e0fbd6b4.pdf, p. 21
- [6] 0b5736fd425502686e11-r1-64adf5c7e0fbd6b4.pdf, p. 38
- [7] 0b5736fd425502686e11-r1-64adf5c7e0fbd6b4.pdf, p. 32
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
The petitioner maintains that the central issue is whether back‑pay awards to an undocumented alien conflict with immigration law and the Court’s Sure‑Tan precedent.
The petitioner argues that back pay should be awarded and explains the differences in this case.
Respondent Position
According to Respondent, the respondent asserts that the Board’s reliance on its physical‑availability doctrine is a fatal flaw.
Immigration and Naturalization Service Position
According to Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), according to Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the INS has agreed with the Board’s position and accepts it.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, chief Justice Rehnquist announced the hearing of the case.
According to Amicus (States), according to Amicus (States), an amicus brief submitted by the States equated back pay under the NLRA with back pay under the FLSA, noting they are different.
Justice asked about the applicability of Title VII.
According to Justice (unspecified), according to Justice (unspecified), a justice asked whether deference should be given to the Attorney General’s views on enforcement of the statutes.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned whether mitigation of back‑pay awards is possible.
According to Justice O'Connor, justice O'Connor questioned whether back‑pay awards to illegal workers might create incentives contrary to immigration policy.
According to Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), according to Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), mr. Wolfson testified that the INS agrees with the Board’s position and accepts it.
- [1] 0b5736fd425502686e11-r1-64adf5c7e0fbd6b4.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 0b5736fd425502686e11-r1-64adf5c7e0fbd6b4.pdf, p. 14
- [3] 0b5736fd425502686e11-r1-64adf5c7e0fbd6b4.pdf, p. 18
- [4] 0b5736fd425502686e11-r1-64adf5c7e0fbd6b4.pdf, p. 21
- [5] 0b5736fd425502686e11-r1-64adf5c7e0fbd6b4.pdf, p. 32
- [6] 0b5736fd425502686e11-r1-64adf5c7e0fbd6b4.pdf, p. 38
- [7] 0b5736fd425502686e11-r1-64adf5c7e0fbd6b4.pdf, p. 27
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Justice O'Connor, justice O'Connor questioned how back‑pay awards to illegal workers might create incentives contrary to immigration policy.
Justices asked about the applicability of Title VII and whether deference should be given to the Attorney General’s views on enforcement of the statutes.
According to Respondent, the Board’s physical‑availability doctrine was identified as a point of contention by the respondent.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 0b5736fd425502686e11-r1-64adf5c7e0fbd6b4.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.