Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
The Supreme Court of the United States denied an award of back pay to an undocumented worker, José Castro, who had been laid off for participating in a union organizing campaign at Hoffman Plastics Compounds plant, along with several other employees.
535 U.S. 137 · No. 00-1595 · 2001 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Mar 27, 2002 · argued Jan 15, 2002
Civil rights · Immigration and naturalization: miscellaneous
Majority opinion: William Rehnquist
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Reversed. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. 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.
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), is a United States labor law decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States denied an award of back pay to an undocumented worker, José Castro, who had been laid off for participating in a union organizing campaign at Hoffman Plastics Compounds plant, along with several other employees. The case was originally filed against Hoffman by Dionisio Gonzalez, an organizer with the United Steelworkers.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that the layoff of Castro had violated National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) section 8(a)(3) on the unlawful firing of union supporters. Castro used another person's identity (a friend's birth certificate) to gain employment at Hoffman Plastics.
In a 5–4 decision, with the justices divided along ideological lines, the Supreme Court interpreted that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which penalizes undocumented workers and provides for significant penalties to companies that knowingly employ illegal immigrants, disallows the use of the make-whole remedial scheme of the NLRA against an employer that benefits any person who knowingly broke immigration law. Chief Justice William Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Sandra O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They expressed concern that employers would use the illegal immigration status of an employee to relieve themselves of responsibility under the NLRA.
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 2001 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
William RehnquistWrote the majority opinion
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Stephen BreyerWrote a dissent
John StevensJoined a dissent
Ruth GinsburgJoined a dissent
David SouterJoined 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
- Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc.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
- 8 U.S.C. § 1324
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- 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.
- Mar 27, 2002DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. won.
- Jan 15, 2002ArguedArgued · 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, District of Columbia Circuit: affirmed, with a dissent.
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
16 other argued cases since 1946 on immigration and naturalization: miscellaneous, newest first.
- Mullin v. al Otro Lado146 S. Ct. 2079Jun 25, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 2079Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Urias-Orellana v. Bondi607 U.S. 537Mar 4, 2026 · 607 U.S. 537Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Department of State v. Muñoz144 S. Ct. 1812Jun 21, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 1812Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Wilkinson v. Garland601 U.S. 209Mar 19, 2024 · 601 U.S. 209Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Pugin v. Garland599 U.S. 600Jun 22, 2023 · 599 U.S. 600Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Garland v. Ming Dai141 S. Ct. 1669Jun 1, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1669Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Niz-Chavez v. Garland, Attorney General141 S. Ct. 1474Apr 29, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1474Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Barton v. Barr140 S. Ct. 1442Apr 23, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 1442Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Trump, President of U.S. v. HawaiiLandmark · Foreign138 S. Ct. 2392Jun 26, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 2392Civil rightsLandmark · Foreign5–45–4 band
- Jennings v. Rodriguez138 S. Ct. 830Feb 27, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 830Civil rights5–36–3 band
- Kerry v. Din576 U.S. 86Jun 15, 2015 · 576 U.S. 86Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa v. United States556 U.S. 646May 4, 2009 · 556 U.S. 646Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Ronald W. Reagan, President of the United States, et al. v. James Abourezk et al.484 U.S. 1Oct 19, 1987 · 484 U.S. 1Civil rights3–36–3 band
- Rosenberg, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Yee Chien Woo402 U.S. 49Apr 21, 1971 · 402 U.S. 49Civil rights5–45–4 band
- International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 37, et al. v. Boyd, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service347 U.S. 222Mar 8, 1954 · 347 U.S. 222Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Clark, Attorney General, As Successor to the Alien Property Custodian, v. Allen et al.331 U.S. 503Jun 9, 1947 · 331 U.S. 503Civil rights9–0Unanimous 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.
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.