← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. FLRA

No. 21-1454 SCOTUS · Decided Decided SCOTUS
Argued: Jan 9, 2023 Decided: May 18, 2023


The Facts

Dual-status military technicians are federal civilian employees who work for state National Guard units but are required by federal law to maintain membership in the Guard and military rank as conditions of employment. The Federal Labor Relations Authority had ruled that Guard technicians were covered by federal civilian labor law and entitled to union representation. Ohio's Adjutant General challenged the coverage determination, arguing the technicians' inherently military character placed them outside civilian labor law.

The Application

History

The Court applied the FSLMRS's categorical exclusions to National Guard technicians, whose dual military-civilian status placed them outside the scope of federal civilian labor protections. Their mandatory military rank and command subordination - statutory requirements that define their employment relationship - excluded them from federal collective bargaining coverage, despite being paid as federal civilian employees. The Court reasoned that extending labor-management protections to workers with inherent military obligations would necessarily intrude on military command authority and operational necessity. The exemption removed technicians' federal labor rights but left states free to provide equivalent protections through state law.

The Conclusion

**Decided May 18, 2023. The 6-3 ruling held that National Guard technicians are exempt from federal civilian labor law due to their hybrid military status.** The decision affects tens of thousands of Guard technicians nationwide, removing their collective bargaining rights under federal law. States retain authority to provide separate labor protections through state law.

CourtSupreme Court of the United States
Filed -
CL StatusActive
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert Granted -
StatusActive
Filed (CL) -
View on CourtListener →
SCOTUS TMR-5d2a9032 May 14, 2026

Case Analysis

Overview

Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. FLRA (2023) held 6-3 that federal labor law does not apply to dual-status military technicians. Federal civilian employees who work for the National Guard but must maintain military membership as a condition of employment. The ruling exempts National Guard technicians from collective bargaining rights under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, resolving a long-standing question about this category of hybrid federal-military workers.

Facts

Dual-status military technicians are federal civilian employees who work for state National Guard units but are required by federal law to maintain membership in the Guard and military rank as conditions of employment. The Federal Labor Relations Authority had ruled that Guard technicians were covered by federal civilian labor law and entitled to union representation. Ohio's Adjutant General challenged the coverage determination, arguing the technicians' inherently military character placed them outside civilian labor law.

Issue

Whether dual-status National Guard technicians, who are federal civilian employees required to maintain military membership as a condition of their employment, are covered by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and entitled to federal civilian collective bargaining rights.

Rule

5 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(3)(C) excludes from federal labor law employees 'engaged in administering or enforcing any law relating to aliens or the disposition of alien property.' The FSLMRS covers most federal civilian employees but contains exclusions for certain categories. National Guard technicians occupy an unusual dual civilian-military status governed by 32 U.S.C. § 709.

Analysis

The Court applied the FSLMRS's categorical exclusions to National Guard technicians, whose dual military-civilian status placed them outside the scope of federal civilian labor protections. Their mandatory military rank and command subordination, statutory requirements that define their employment relationship, excluded them from federal collective bargaining coverage, despite being paid as federal civilian employees. The Court reasoned that extending labor-management protections to workers with inherent military obligations would necessarily intrude on military command authority and operational necessity. The exemption removed technicians' federal labor rights but left states free to provide equivalent protections through state law.

Conclusion

**Decided May 18, 2023. The 6-3 ruling held that National Guard technicians are exempt from federal civilian labor law due to their hybrid military status.** The decision affects tens of thousands of Guard technicians nationwide, removing their collective bargaining rights under federal law. States retain authority to provide separate labor protections through state law.

Notes

OT2022. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support