Sure-Tan, Inc., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board
By a 7-2 majority, the Court ruled that undocumented immigrant workers were “employees” covered by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA).
467 U.S. 883 · No. 82-945 · 1983 term · Burger Court
Decided Jun 25, 1984 · argued Dec 6, 1983
Civil rights · Employability of aliens
Majority opinion: Sandra O'Connor
The voteMajorityDissent
7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Affirmed. Sure-Tan, Inc., et al. lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Sure-Tan, Inc., et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give 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.
Sure-Tan, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 467 U.S. 883 (1984) is a United States labor law case that resulted in a split decision before the Supreme Court of the United States. By a 7-2 majority, the Court ruled that undocumented immigrant workers were “employees” covered by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA). However, by a 5-4 majority the Court ruled that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was limited in its remedies for penalizing employers who fired undocumented workers for union organizing in violation of the NLRA. The decision was one of a series limiting the rights of immigrant workers and the power of the NLRB culminating with Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB.
Sure-Tan, Inc. was a small leather processing company in Chicago, Illinois. Workers at the company, several of whom were undocumented immigrants from Mexico, voted to unionize in late 1976. After the NLRB’s certification of the election in January 1977, the company’s owner wrote to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and named five union supporters who might be undocumented. The company also fired non-immigrant employees who were union supporters. In February 1977, the INS raided the firm and deported the five workers. The NLRB charged the company with violating the workers' right to organize and ordered the company to rehire the workers with back pay for the lost work from the date of their arrest by the INS.
Justice O’Connor delivered the decision for the US Supreme Court and ruled that undocumented workers were fully covered by the NLRA, but reinstatement and back pay could not be assessed because the workers, who had been deported to Mexico, were unavailable for work. Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens concurred that undocumented workers are employees under the NLRA but dissented from back pay portion of the decision by arguing that the NLRB had acted properly. Justices Powell and Rehnquist dissented from the opinion that undocumented workers are employees under the NLRA but concurred with the decision to deny back pay to deported undocumented workers.
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 1983 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(7)
Sandra O'ConnorWrote the majority opinion
William BrennanWrote a concurrence
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
John StevensJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
Lewis PowellWrote a dissent
William RehnquistJoined a dissent
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
- Sure-Tan, Inc., et al.Employer
- Respondent
- National Labor Relations BoardNational Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer
- 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
- National Labor Relations, as amended
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- Decided by
- Interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order; Statutory construction
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.
- Jun 25, 1984DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: affirmed. Sure-Tan, Inc., et al. lost.
- Dec 6, 1983ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit: affirmed.
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
12 other argued cases since 1946 on employability of aliens, newest first.
- Bernal v. Fainter, Secretary of State of Texas, et al.467 U.S. 216May 30, 1984 · 467 U.S. 216Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Cabell, Acting Chief Probation Officer of Los Angeles County, et al. v. Chavez-Salido et al.454 U.S. 432Jan 12, 1982 · 454 U.S. 432Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Ambach, Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, et al. v. Norwick et al.441 U.S. 68Apr 17, 1979 · 441 U.S. 68Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Foley v. Connelie, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.435 U.S. 291Mar 22, 1978 · 435 U.S. 291Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Examining Board of Engineers, Architects and Surveyors et al. v. Flores de Otero426 U.S. 572Jun 17, 1976 · 426 U.S. 572Civil rights7–18–1 band
- Hampton, Chairman, U.S. Civil Service Commission, et al. v. Mow Sun Wong et al.426 U.S. 88Jun 1, 1976 · 426 U.S. 88Civil rights5–45–4 band
- De Canas et al. v. Bica et al.424 U.S. 351Feb 25, 1976 · 424 U.S. 351Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
- Saxbe, Attorney General, et al. v. Bustos et al.419 U.S. 65Nov 25, 1974 · 419 U.S. 65Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Espinoza et vir v. Farah Manufacturing Co., Inc.414 U.S. 86Nov 19, 1973 · 414 U.S. 86Civil rights8–18–1 band
- In re Griffiths413 U.S. 717Jun 25, 1973 · 413 U.S. 717Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Sugarman, Administrator, New York City Human Resources Administration, et al. v. Dougall et al.413 U.S. 634Jun 25, 1973 · 413 U.S. 634Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission et al.334 U.S. 410Jun 7, 1948 · 334 U.S. 410Civil rights7–27–2 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, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.