National Labor Relations Board v. Getman
Headline: Government blocked from pausing release of labor board employee voter lists as Justice Black denies stay, requiring the board to give two law professors names and addresses under the Freedom of Information Act.
Holding: In acting alone, Justice Black denied the Government’s request to pause the trial-court order and ruled the Labor Board must promptly provide the professors with employee names and addresses under FOIA.
- Requires NLRB to provide employee names and addresses for about 35 representation elections.
- Allows researchers to obtain voter lists for labor representation studies under FOIA.
- Government can still seek further relief from another Justice; decision is not final.
Summary
Background
Two law professors who were studying labor representation elections asked a federal trial court for the names and addresses of employees eligible to vote in about 35 union representation elections. The trial court ordered the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency that runs those elections, to provide the requested names and addresses. The professors relied on the Freedom of Information Act’s rule that agencies must promptly make identifiable records available on request.
Reasoning
The Government asked a Justice to pause that trial-court order, saying releasing the lists would interfere with the Board’s election procedures under the National Labor Relations Act. Acting alone, Justice Black reviewed the request for a pause and found no exception in the Freedom of Information Act that would let the Board refuse to turn over the requested records. He noted that Congress created the Board and required agencies to make identifiable records available, and he denied the Government’s request to stay the lower-court order.
Real world impact
As a result of this decision, the Board must provide the requested employee names and addresses to the two professors unless another Member of the Court grants relief. The order forces the agency to comply promptly with the FOIA request, though the Justice’s action was limited to denying the temporary pause and is not a final ruling on all legal issues. The Government may still ask another Justice to intervene, and the ultimate outcome could change on further review.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?