InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Francis Bernard Auer, et al. v. David A. Robbins et al.

In a dispute over whether St. Louis police sergeants and lieutenants were owed overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Court held that it should defer to the Secretary of Labor's interpretation of the regulations.· AI-written

519 U.S. 452 · No. 95-897 · 1996 term · Rehnquist Court

Decided Feb 19, 1997 · argued Dec 10, 1996

Unions · Fair Labor Standards Act

Landmark · Administrative law

Majority opinion: Antonin Scalia

The voteMajority

9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent

No dissent (9–0)

Affirmed. Francis Bernard Auer, et al. lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Francis Bernard Auer, 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.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), is a United States Supreme Court case that concerns the standard that the Court should apply when it reviews an executive department's interpretation of regulations established under federal legislation. The specific issue was whether sergeants and lieutenants in the St. Louis Police Department should be paid for working overtime. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established the overtime pay requirement, and the US Department of Labor issued regulations to determine if an employee was covered by the overtime requirement.

The Court held that it should defer to the Secretary of Labor's interpretation of the regulations.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

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.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1996 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianStevensBreyerGinsburgSouterKennedyO'ConnorRehnquistScaliaThomas

Majority(9)

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.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Francis Bernard Auer, et al.Governmental employee or job applicant (Missouri)
Respondent
David A. Robbins et al.City, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit (Missouri)
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.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Fair Labor Standards
Kind of law
Federal Statute
Decided by
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.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Feb 19, 1997DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. Francis Bernard Auer, et al. lost.
  2. Dec 10, 1996ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Missouri Eastern 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.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

57 other argued cases since 1946 on fair Labor Standards Act, newest first.

  1. E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera604 U.S. 45Jan 15, 2025 · 604 U.S. 45Unions9–0Unanimous band

  2. Helix Energy Solutions Group v. Hewitt598 U.S. 39Feb 22, 2023 · 598 U.S. 39Unions6–36–3 band

  3. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro138 S. Ct. 1134Apr 2, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 1134Unions5–45–4 band

  4. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro579 U.S. 211Jun 20, 2016 · 579 U.S. 211Unions6–27–2 band

  5. Tyson Foods, Inc., v. Bouaphakeo577 U.S. 442Mar 22, 2016 · 577 U.S. 442Unions6–27–2 band

  6. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n575 U.S. 92Mar 9, 2015 · 575 U.S. 92Unions9–0Unanimous band

  7. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk574 U.S. 27Dec 9, 2014 · 574 U.S. 27Unions9–0Unanimous band

  8. Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp.571 U.S. 220Jan 27, 2014 · 571 U.S. 220Unions9–0Unanimous band

  9. Genesis Healthcare Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Laura Symczyk569 U.S. 66Apr 16, 2013 · 569 U.S. 66Unions5–45–4 band

  10. Michael Shane Christopher, et al., Petitioners v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation dba Glaxosmithkline567 U.S. 142Jun 18, 2012 · 567 U.S. 142Unions5–45–4 band

  11. Kevin Kasten, Petitioner v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation563 U.S. 1Mar 22, 2011 · 563 U.S. 1Unions6–27–2 band

  12. Long Island Care at Home, Ltd., et al. v. Evelyn Coke551 U.S. 158Jun 11, 2007 · 551 U.S. 158Unions9–0Unanimous band
  13. Ibp, Inc. v. Gabriel Alvarez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al.546 U.S. 21Nov 8, 2005 · 546 U.S. 21Unions9–0Unanimous band
  14. Edward Christensen, et al. v. Harris County, et al.529 U.S. 576May 1, 2000 · 529 U.S. 576Unions6–36–3 band

  15. Lynwood Moreau, etc., et al. v. Johnny Klevenhagen, Sheriff, Harris County, Texas, et al.508 U.S. 22May 3, 1993 · 508 U.S. 22Unions9–0Unanimous band
  16. McLaughlin, Secretary of Labor v. Richland Shoe Co.486 U.S. 128May 16, 1988 · 486 U.S. 128Unions6–36–3 band
  17. Citicorp Industrial Credit, Inc. v. Brock, Secretary of Labor483 U.S. 27Jun 22, 1987 · 483 U.S. 27Unions7–27–2 band
  18. Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation et al. v. Secretary of Labor471 U.S. 290Apr 23, 1985 · 471 U.S. 290Unions9–0Unanimous band
  19. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority et al.Landmark · Federalism469 U.S. 528Feb 19, 1985 · 469 U.S. 528Unions5–45–4 band

  20. National League of Cities et al. v. Usery, Secretary of Labor426 U.S. 833Jun 24, 1976 · 426 U.S. 833Unions5–45–4 band

  21. Falk et al. v. Brennan, Secretary of Labor414 U.S. 190Dec 5, 1973 · 414 U.S. 190Unions5–45–4 band
  22. Employees of the Department of Public Health and Welfare of Missouri et al. v. Department of Public Health and Welfare of Missouri et al.411 U.S. 279Apr 18, 1973 · 411 U.S. 279Unions8–18–1 band
  23. Brennan, Secretary of Labor v. Arnheim & Neely, Inc., et al.410 U.S. 512Feb 28, 1973 · 410 U.S. 512Unions8–18–1 band
  24. Maryland et al. v. Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, et al.392 U.S. 183Jun 10, 1968 · 392 U.S. 183Unions6–27–2 band
  25. Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz, Secretary of Labor383 U.S. 190Feb 24, 1966 · 383 U.S. 190Unions9–0Unanimous band
  26. Goldberg, Secretary of Labor, v. Whitaker House Cooperative, Inc., et al.366 U.S. 28Apr 24, 1961 · 366 U.S. 28Unions6–36–3 band
  27. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, v. H. B. Zachry Co.362 U.S. 310Apr 4, 1960 · 362 U.S. 310Unions5–45–4 band
  28. Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc.361 U.S. 388Feb 23, 1960 · 361 U.S. 388Unions8–18–1 band
  29. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, v. Robert Demario Jewelry, Inc., et al.361 U.S. 288Jan 18, 1960 · 361 U.S. 288Unions6–36–3 band
  30. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, v. Kentucky Finance Co., Inc., et al.359 U.S. 290Apr 20, 1959 · 359 U.S. 290Unions8–0Unanimous band
  31. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, v. Lublin, McGaughy & Associates et al.358 U.S. 207Jan 12, 1959 · 358 U.S. 207Unions7–27–2 band
  32. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, v. Bekins Van & Storage Co.352 U.S. 1027Mar 11, 1957 · 352 U.S. 1027Unions6–27–2 band
  33. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, v. Budd et al.350 U.S. 473Mar 26, 1956 · 350 U.S. 473Unions9–0Unanimous band
  34. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, v. King Packing Co.350 U.S. 260Jan 30, 1956 · 350 U.S. 260Unions9–0Unanimous band
  35. Steiner et al., Doing Business As Cumberland Battery Manufacturing Co., v. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor350 U.S. 247Jan 30, 1956 · 350 U.S. 247Unions9–0Unanimous band
  36. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, v. Myrtle Grove Packing Co.350 U.S. 891Nov 14, 1955 · 350 U.S. 891Unions9–0Unanimous band
  37. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, v. C. W. Vollmer & Co., Inc.349 U.S. 427Jun 6, 1955 · 349 U.S. 427Unions6–27–2 band
  38. Maneja et al. v. Waialua Agricultural Co., Ltd.349 U.S. 254May 23, 1955 · 349 U.S. 254Unions6–36–3 band
  39. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, v. Joyce Agency, Inc.348 U.S. 945Feb 28, 1955 · 348 U.S. 945Unions8–0Unanimous band
  40. United States v. Binghamton Construction Co., Inc.347 U.S. 171Mar 8, 1954 · 347 U.S. 171Unions9–0Unanimous band
  41. Thomas v. Hempt Brothers345 U.S. 19Mar 9, 1953 · 345 U.S. 19Unions7–27–2 band
  42. Alstate Construction Co. v. Durkin, Secretary of Labor345 U.S. 13Mar 9, 1953 · 345 U.S. 13Unions7–27–2 band
  43. United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corporation et al.344 U.S. 218Dec 22, 1952 · 344 U.S. 218Unions8–18–1 band
  44. Powell et al. v. United States Cartridge Co.339 U.S. 497May 8, 1950 · 339 U.S. 497Unions5–27–2 band
  45. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McCOMB, Wage & Hour Administrator337 U.S. 755Jun 27, 1949 · 337 U.S. 755Unions8–18–1 band
  46. Foley Bros., Inc. et al. v. Filardo336 U.S. 281Mar 7, 1949 · 336 U.S. 281Unions9–0Unanimous band
  47. Vermilya-Brown Co., Inc. et al. v. Connell et al.335 U.S. 377Dec 6, 1948 · 335 U.S. 377Unions5–45–4 band
  48. Bay Ridge Operating Co., Inc. v. Aaron et al.334 U.S. 446Jun 7, 1948 · 334 U.S. 446Unions5–36–3 band
  49. Kennedy et al. v. Silas Mason Co.334 U.S. 249May 17, 1948 · 334 U.S. 249Unions9–0Unanimous band
  50. Morris v. McCOMB, Wage and Hour Administrator332 U.S. 422Nov 17, 1947 · 332 U.S. 422Unions5–45–4 band
  51. Rutherford Food Corp. et al. v. McCOMB, Wage and Hour Administrator331 U.S. 722Jun 16, 1947 · 331 U.S. 722Unions9–0Unanimous band
  52. 149 Madison Avenue Corp. et al. v. Asselta et al.331 U.S. 199May 5, 1947 · 331 U.S. 199Unions9–0Unanimous band
  53. Walling, Wage and Hour Administrator, v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.331 U.S. 17Apr 14, 1947 · 331 U.S. 17Unions7–27–2 band
  54. Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass et al.330 U.S. 695Mar 31, 1947 · 330 U.S. 695Unions9–0Unanimous band
  55. Levinson v. Spector Motor Service330 U.S. 649Mar 31, 1947 · 330 U.S. 649Unions6–36–3 band
  56. Walling, Wage and Hour Administrator, v. General Industries Co.330 U.S. 545Mar 31, 1947 · 330 U.S. 545Unions6–36–3 band
  57. Walling, Wage and Hour Administrator, v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway330 U.S. 158Feb 17, 1947 · 330 U.S. 158Unions9–0Unanimous 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.

Report a correction

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.