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
Petitioners sought review in the Sixth Circuit, which denied relief.
The Court ordered petitioners to follow the mandatory terms of the 2011 collective bargaining agreement, bargain in good faith going forward, and reinstate union‑dues withholding.
Background and question before the Court
Petitioners sought review in the Sixth Circuit, which denied relief.
What each side argues
Petitioners (general)
Petitioners contend that federalism concerns require the Court to read the statute to exempt them from the FLRA’s jurisdiction.
Mr. Flowers (Petitioners)
Petitioners argue that the Sixth Circuit and the FLRA erred in holding that adjutants general and state guards, when they employ technicians, are federal agencies subject to FLRA orders.
According to Petitioners, he further asserts that the Reform Act defines agencies to include executive departments, government corporations, and independent establishments, not the state entities at issue.
Ms. Reaves (FLRA / Government)
According to Ms. Reaves, petitioners are required to comply with the Act and submit to the FLRA’s orders because they play a role in the federal employment system.
According to Ms. Reaves, dual‑status technicians have collective‑bargaining rights as federal civilian employees employed by parts of the Department of Defense, a covered agency.
According to Ms. Reaves, the term “agency” in the statute includes subcomponents that act on behalf of the agency, which covers the petitioners’ situation.
Mr. Grajales (Union Respondent)
According to Mr. Grajales (Union Respondent), according to Mr. Grajales (Union Respondent), a ruling in favor of the union will not affect any other state entity; the scheme is unique to the technicians and the National Guard.
According to Mr. Grajales (Union Respondent), according to Mr. Grajales (Union Respondent), moving bargaining to the Department of Defense would render parts of the statute inoperative; the Technicians Act gives day‑to‑day supervision to the Ohio Adjutant General.
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (Amicus)
According to American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, the amici argue that the National Guard is a unit or component of the Department of Defense.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the Court will hear argument next in Case 21‑1454, Ohio ADJ vs. FLRA.
Justice Kavanaugh asked whether the collective bargaining agreement here is approved by the Department of Defense.
Justice Gorsuch asked about the federalism implications of the case, specifically whether state employees funded by the federal government are effectively federal agencies.
Justice Barrett asked whether Ohio’s claim that complying with the collective‑bargaining order would be impractical or unlawful is an open question or a baseless assertion.
Justice Jackson asked whether the adjutant generals are subject to FLRA authority only when acting as employers of federal employees.
Justice Jackson followed up, asking if the FLRA is involved only when the state officer supervises federal employees, not when supervising state employees.
Justice Sotomayor asked why the Board was collecting forms for union‑dues deductions if the federal government pays the dual‑citizens’ salary.
Justice Gorsuch asked what to do about the omission of the military departments on page 102.
- [1] 03741b560ea073630971-r1-3568c4a02eddbab8.pdf, p. 5
- [2] 03741b560ea073630971-r1-3568c4a02eddbab8.pdf, p. 49
- [3] 03741b560ea073630971-r1-3568c4a02eddbab8.pdf, p. 62
- [4] 03741b560ea073630971-r1-3568c4a02eddbab8.pdf, p. 88
- [5] 03741b560ea073630971-r1-3568c4a02eddbab8.pdf, p. 91
- [6] 03741b560ea073630971-r1-3568c4a02eddbab8.pdf, p. 92
- [7] 03741b560ea073630971-r1-3568c4a02eddbab8.pdf, p. 97
- [8] 03741b560ea073630971-r1-3568c4a02eddbab8.pdf, p. 102
What the Court decided
The Court ordered petitioners to follow the mandatory terms of the 2011 collective bargaining agreement, bargain in good faith, and reinstate union‑dues withholding.
Justice Alito dissented, arguing that no petitioner is an “agency” within the meaning of § 7105(g)(3) and therefore should be outside the remedial jurisdiction of the FLRA.
Why it matters
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.
- 03741b560ea073630971-r1-3568c4a02eddbab8.pdforal argument transcript
- f6d9887a2948637105e9-r1-1d26b87b0bfaf22e.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.