Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Department of Defense Vs. Flra

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 08, 1993

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

59 entries 3 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Di Santo Vs. Pennsylvania US Supreme Court · Jan 03, 1927
  2. Epa Vs. Mink US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1973
  3. Department of State Vs. Ray US Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1991
  4. U.S. 487 (1993) October Term, 1993 Syllabus United States Department of Defense Et Al. V. Federal
    Search
  5. interest in keeping their home addresses private. It thereby rejected the view that, under Department of Justice v. Reporters
    Search
  6. representatives pursuant to requests made under the Labor Statute. Pp. 492-504. (a) Department of Justice v. Reporters
    Search
  7. Portsmouth), application for enforcement denied and cross-petition for review granted sub nom. FLRA v. Department
    Search
  8. in keeping their home addresses private. The court recognized that, in light of our decision in Department of Justice v. Reporters
    Search
  9. would be served by disclosure.3 Rejecting that view, however, the 3 See, e. g., Department of Navy, Navy Exchange v. FLRA
    Search
  10. FLRA v. Department
    Search
  11. FLRA v. Department
    Search
  12. Department of Air Force v. Rose
    Search
  13. U. S. 352 , 360-361 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also EPA v. Mink
    Search
  14. FOIA. For guidance in answering this question, we need look no further than to our decision in Department of Justice v. Reporters
    Search
  15. ibid. (quoting NLRB v. Sears
    Search
  16. guidance in making this identification in Exemption 7(C) and Exemption 6 cases. See, e. g., Department of State v. Ray
    Search
  17. to the FOIA analysis. Cf. Reporters Comm., 489 U. S., at 771-772. In her concurring opinion in FLRA v. Department
    Search
  18. we weigh the interest of bargaining unit employees in nondisclosure of their home addresses. Cf. Department of State v. Ray
    Search
  19. the privacy of the home, which is accorded special consideration in our Constitution, laws, and traditions. Cf. Rowan v. United
    Search
  20. Olmstead v. United
    Search
  21. although they have differed in their characterization of the magnitude of the interest implicated. See, e. g., FLRA v. Department
    Search
  22. the clear words of the provisions we 503 construe, including the Labor Statute. Cf. Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain
    Search
  23. from that of their private sector counterparts, Congress may correct the disparity. Cf. Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex
    Search
  24. Co., 473 U. S. 479 , 499 (1985). 9 See, e. g., NLRB v. Associated
    Search
  25. NLRB v. Pearl
    Search
  26. Bookbinding Co., 517 F.2d 1108 , 1113 (CAI1975). 504 v For
    Search
  27. n. 5. JUSTICE GINSBURG, concurring in the judgment. Before this Court's decision in Department of Justice v. Reporters
    Search
  28. In these judgments, the Courts of Appeals deferred to the Authority's expert de- 1 See Department of Navy v. FLRA
    Search
  29. Department of Air Force, Scott Air Force Base v. FLRA
    Search
  30. Department of Agriculture v. FLRA
    Search
  31. Department of Health and Human Services v. FLRA
    Search
  32. CA4 1987), cert. dism'd, 488 U. S. 880 (1988). See also American Federation of Govt. Employees, Local 1760 v. FLRA
    Search
  33. requires this result. I came to the same conclusion as a judge instructed by the Court's precedent. See FLRA v. Department
    Search
  34. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. FLRA
    Search
  35. those unions information their private-sector counterparts routinely receive. See, e. g., Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. NLRB
    Search
  36. see also NLRB v. WymanGordon
    Search
  37. and because courts ordinarily defer to agency assessments of this order. But cf. United States Postal Service v. National
    Search
  38. Department of Justice v. Tax
    Search
  39. Analysts, 492 U. S. 136 , 150-151 (1989), quoting Department of Justice 4 Compare FLRA v. Department
    Search
  40. American Federation of Govt. Employees, Local 1760 v. FLRA
    Search
  41. FLRA v. Department
    Search
  42. See FLRA v. Department
    Search
  43. on the basis of the interest they assert, not simply their identity or 509 particular purpose. See FLRA v. Department
    Search
  44. by my colleagues, and I am also mindful that the pull of precedent is strongest in statutory cases. See Burnet v. Coronado
    Search
  45. Syllabus United States Department of Defense Et Al. V. Federal
    Search
  46. Department of Justice v. Reporters
    Search
  47. Department of Navy, Navy Exchange v. FLRA
    Search
  48. NLRB v. Sears
    Search
  49. Cf. Department of State v. Ray
    Search
  50. Cf. Rowan v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial