Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall

Background

An employer, a union seeking to organize the employer’s workers, and Mulhall (the sole plaintiff) were involved in a dispute about certain promises the employer made. The promises included remaining neutral during organizing, allowing union access to nonpublic areas, and providing a list of employees with contact information. The Eleventh Circuit held those items could be "things of value" under an anti‑bribery law and that making or requesting them could violate the law. Other federal appeals courts reached the opposite conclusion, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the split.

Reasoning

The core question was whether promises of neutrality, access, or employee lists violate Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act and whether a union’s request for those promises violates the companion provision. The Court did not reach that question. Instead, the Court dismissed its review as improvidently granted and did not decide the merits. A dissenting Justice explained that the Court should have asked for more briefing about whether the case was moot, whether Mulhall had the right to bring the case, and whether private parties can sue under the statute.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court declined to decide, the legal disagreement among appeals courts remains unresolved. Employers, unions, and employees continue to face uncertainty about whether common organizing agreements could be treated as criminal, a concern highlighted by the statute’s five‑year maximum prison term. The dismissal is not a final merits ruling, so the issue could be decided in a future case or addressed by further briefing or government action.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Breyer, joined by two colleagues, dissented and urged additional briefing on mootness, standing, and whether the statute allows private lawsuits; he also suggested vacating the lower court ruling if jurisdiction were lacking, to avoid leaving a contested precedent in place.