October Term 2007 · Docket 06-939
Does federal law block states from banning employer union speech in grants?
Employers claim federal law preempts a state ban on union speech. The state argues it controls its own grant funds.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Goldsmith argued California defunded employer speech. He claimed this conflicts with federal policy.
Mr. Gottesman argued California financed one side of debates. He said the law created an anomaly.
Mr. Hungar argued state laws frustrate national policy. He cited the Linn decision as precedent.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 37-5 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 37-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-15
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests if federal labor law overrides state grant rules. The dispute centers on employer speech about unions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-37
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 19, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-43
What each side wants
Employers want the state law struck down. They argue federal law protects their speech rights.
The state wants to keep the law. It claims it controls its own spending.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-37
What each side says
Employers argue federal law preempts the state ban. They cite prior Supreme Court precedent on speech.
The state argues it funds specific purposes. It claims it can exclude union speech from grants.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-37
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if the state must show its interest. She questioned the facial challenge approach.
Justice Breyer asked why the state excludes union speech. He noted the state pays for all costs.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 37-5 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 37-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-15
Why it matters
This case defines state control over grant funds. It shapes employer speech rights in public projects. It balances federal labor policy with state autonomy.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-37
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 37-5 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 37-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-15
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-37
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.