Unemployment Compensation Commission of Alaska et al. v. Aragon et al.
329 U.S. 143 · No. 25 · 1946 term · Vinson Court
Decided Dec 9, 1946 · argued Feb 27, 1946, reargued Nov 13, 1946
Unions · Labor-management disputes: working conditions
Majority opinion: Frederick Vinson
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded. Unemployment Compensation Commission of Alaska et al. won.
What this ruling means
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded: the Supreme Court upheld part of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, overturned or set aside the rest, and sent the case back for further proceedings that follow its ruling.
Unemployment Compensation Commission of Alaska et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Wikipedia has no article on this case, so there is no summary.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1946 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Frederick VinsonWrote the majority opinion
Hugo BlackJoined the majority
Frank MurphyJoined the majority
Wiley RutledgeJoined the majority
William DouglasJoined the majority
Stanley ReedJoined the majority
Harold BurtonJoined the majority
Felix FrankfurterJoined the majority
Robert JacksonJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Unemployment Compensation Commission of Alaska et al.State commission, board, committee, or authority (Alaska)
- Respondent
- Aragon et al.Unemployed person or unemployment compensation applicant or claimant
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Territory Statute
- Kind of law
- Other
- Decided by
- Statutory construction; Interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Dec 9, 1946DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded. Unemployment Compensation Commission of Alaska et al. won.
- Nov 13, 1946RearguedReargued · The Court heard the case argued a second time.
- Feb 27, 1946ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: affirmed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Alaska U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
11 other argued cases since 1946 on labor-management disputes: working conditions, newest first.
- Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, et al. v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company, et al.516 U.S. 152Jan 8, 1996 · 516 U.S. 152Unions9–0Unanimous band
- Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Railway Labor Executives' Association et al.491 U.S. 299Jun 19, 1989 · 491 U.S. 299Unions7–27–2 band
- Ford Motor Co. (Chicago Stamping Plant) v. National Labor Relations Board et al.441 U.S. 488May 14, 1979 · 441 U.S. 488Unions9–0Unanimous band
- Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Railroad Co. v. United Transportation Union et al.396 U.S. 142Dec 9, 1969 · 396 U.S. 142Unions6–27–2 band
- National Labor Relations Board v. Strong, dba Strong Roofing & Insulating Co.393 U.S. 357Jan 15, 1969 · 393 U.S. 357Unions8–18–1 band
- National Labor Relations Board v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.388 U.S. 26Jun 12, 1967 · 388 U.S. 26Unions7–27–2 band
- National Labor Relations Board v. C & C Plywood Corp.385 U.S. 421Jan 9, 1967 · 385 U.S. 421Unions9–0Unanimous band
- National Labor Relations Board v. Erie Resistor Corp. et al.373 U.S. 221May 13, 1963 · 373 U.S. 221Unions9–0Unanimous band
- Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers et al. v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. et al.363 U.S. 528Jun 20, 1960 · 363 U.S. 528Unions7–27–2 band
- National Labor Relations Board v. Gamble Enterprises, Inc.345 U.S. 117Mar 9, 1953 · 345 U.S. 117Unions6–36–3 band
- American Newspaper Publishers Association v. National Labor Relations Board345 U.S. 100Mar 9, 1953 · 345 U.S. 100Unions6–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.