Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Brown (554 U.S. 60)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 19, 2008 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 554 U.S. 60 · 128 S. Ct. 2408
- Decided
- June 19, 2008
- Term
- October Term 2007
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Stevens
- Issue area
- Federalism
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. A California statute known as “Assembly Bill 1889” (AB 1889) prohibits several classes of employers that receive state funds from using the funds “to assist, promote, or deter union organizing.” See Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §§ 16645-16649 (West Supp. 2008). The question presented to us is whether two of its provisions—§ 16645.2, applicable to grant recipients, and § 16645.7, applicable to private employers receiving more than $10,000 in program funds in any year— are pre-empted by federal law mandating that certain zones of labor activity be unregulated. I As set forth in the preamble, the State of California enacted AB 1889 for the following purpose: “It is the policy of the state not to interfere with an employee’s choice about whether to join or to be represented by a labor union. For this reason, the state should not subsidize efforts by an employer to assist, promote, or deter union organizing. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to prohibit an employer from using state funds and facilities for the purpose of influencing employees to support or oppose unionization and to prohibit an employer from seeking to influence employees to support or oppose unionization while those employees are performing work on a state contract.” 2000 Cal. Stats, ch. 872, § 1. AB 1889 prohibits certain employers that receive…
Excerpt of a 28,180-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.