- NLRB v. Hearst Publications
NLRB v. Hearst Publications
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 8–9, 1944
Decided April 24, 1944
Full case name National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc Citations 322 U.S. 111 (more)
64 S. Ct. 851; 88 L. Ed. 1170; 1944 U.S. LEXIS 1201; 8 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P51,179; 14 L.R.R.M. 614
Prior history Court of Appeals refused to enforce the NLRB's orders, 136 F.2d 608 (reversed). Holding Reviewing courts have limited review over administrative agencies' interpretation of terms in their organic statutes. The NLRB's finding that the newsboys were employees was subject to deference. Court membershipChief Justice
Harlan F. Stone
Case opinions Majority Rutledge, joined by Stone, Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Murphy, Jackson Concurrence Reed Dissent Roberts Laws applied National Labor Relations Act
Hearst Publications, the publishers of four daily Los Angeles newspapers, refused to bargain collectively with their newsboys. The newsboys filed petitions with the National Labor Relations Board for certification as a local union. The NLRB found that the newsboys were full-time employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act and ordered Hearst to cease violating the Act and bargain with the newsboys. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to enforce the order, reasoning that the newsboys were independent contractors, rather than employees.
Decision of the Court
Justice Rutledge, delivering the opinion of the court, ruled that the NLRB's interpretation of the Act was not erroneous. The court held that when an administrative agency engages in "specific application of a broad statutory term in a proceeding in which the agency administering the statute must determine it initially, the reviewing court's function is limited." The newsboys were employees within the meaning of the Act, with whom Hearst was required to collectively bargain.
Justice Roberts, dissenting, wrote that "the question of who is an employee, so as to make the statute applicable to him, is a question of the meaning of the Act and, therefore, is a judicial and not an administrative question."
United States administrative law Supreme Court decisionsLondoner v. Denver (1908) • Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1915) • NLRB v. Hearst Publications (1944) • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. (1944) • Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB (1951) • Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971) • Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) • Vermont Yankee v. NRDC (1978) • Chevron v. NRDC (1984) • United States v. Mead Corp. (2001) • Whitman v. ATA (2001) • National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services (2005) Federal legislation Concepts
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
Look at other dictionaries:
Code of Federal Regulations — Administrative law General prin … Wikipedia
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. — Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Fe … Wikipedia
Mathews v. Eldridge — Supreme Court of the United States Argued October 6, 1975 Decided February 24, 1 … Wikipedia
National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services — Supreme Court of the United States … Wikipedia
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe — Supreme Court of the United States Argued January 11, 1971 … Wikipedia
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 322 — This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 322 of the United States Reports :* Chicago, St. P., M. O. R. Co. v. United States , ussc|322|1|1944 * Pollock v. Williams , ussc|322|4|1944 * United States v. Marshall… … Wikipedia
Christensen v. Harris County — Supreme Court of the United States Argued February 23, 2000 Decided Ma … Wikipedia