InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Salinas v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

The court held that the United States Railroad Retirement Board's decision to refuse to reopen the prior, adverse benefits determination of a former railroad worker was subject to judicial review.

141 S. Ct. 691 · No. 19-199 · 2020 term · Roberts Court

Decided Feb 3, 2021 · argued Nov 2, 2020

Unions · Labor-management disputes: miscellaneous dispute

Majority opinion: Sonia Sotomayor

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Reversed and remanded. Salinas won.

What this ruling means

Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Salinas 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.

Report a correction

Summary

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

Salinas v. Railroad Retirement Board, 592 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the United States Railroad Retirement Board's decision to refuse to reopen the prior, adverse benefits determination of a former railroad worker was subject to judicial review.

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 2020 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianSotomayorBreyerKaganJ. RobertsKavanaughBarrettGorsuchAlitoThomas

Majority(5)

Dissent(4)

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
SalinasDisabled person or disability benefit claimant
Respondent
U.S. Railroad Retirement BoardRailroad Retirement Board
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
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
Railroad Retirement Act
Kind of law
Infrequently litigated statutes
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 3, 2021DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed and remanded. Salinas won.
  2. Nov 2, 2020ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: petition denied or appeal dismissed.
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

19 other argued cases since 1946 on labor-management disputes: miscellaneous dispute, newest first.

  1. Be & K Construction Company v. National Labor Relations Board et al.536 U.S. 516Jun 24, 2002 · 536 U.S. 516Unions9–0Unanimous band
  2. National Labor Relations Board v. Health Care & Retirement Corporation of America511 U.S. 571May 23, 1994 · 511 U.S. 571Unions5–45–4 band
  3. First National Maintenance Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board452 U.S. 666Jun 22, 1981 · 452 U.S. 666Unions7–27–2 band
  4. Detroit Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board440 U.S. 301Mar 5, 1979 · 440 U.S. 301Unions5–45–4 band
  5. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Mobil Oil Corp., Marine Transportation Department, Gulf-East Coast Operations426 U.S. 407Jun 14, 1976 · 426 U.S. 407Unions7–27–2 band
  6. City of Charlotte et al. v. Local 660, International Association of Firefighters, et al.426 U.S. 283Jun 7, 1976 · 426 U.S. 283Unions9–0Unanimous band
  7. Howard Johnson Co., Inc. v. Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO417 U.S. 249Jun 3, 1974 · 417 U.S. 249Unions8–18–1 band
  8. Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.384 U.S. 238May 23, 1966 · 384 U.S. 238Unions7–18–1 band
  9. National Labor Relations Board v. Brown et al., dba Brown Food Store, et al.380 U.S. 278Mar 29, 1965 · 380 U.S. 278Unions8–18–1 band
  10. Textile Workers Union of America v. Darlington Manufacturing Co. et al.380 U.S. 263Mar 29, 1965 · 380 U.S. 263Unions7–0Unanimous band

  11. National Labor Relations Board v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp.371 U.S. 224Jan 7, 1963 · 371 U.S. 224Unions9–0Unanimous band
  12. Retail Clerks International Association, Local Unions Nos. 128 and 633, v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc., et al.369 U.S. 17Feb 26, 1962 · 369 U.S. 17Unions9–0Unanimous band
  13. Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, et al. v. National Labor Relations Board362 U.S. 479May 2, 1960 · 362 U.S. 479Unions9–0Unanimous band
  14. Goodall-Sanford, Inc., v. United Textile Workers of America, A. F. L. Local 1802, et al.353 U.S. 550Jun 3, 1957 · 353 U.S. 550Unions7–18–1 band
  15. Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama353 U.S. 448Jun 3, 1957 · 353 U.S. 448Unions7–18–1 band
  16. General Electric Co. v. Local 205, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (U. E.)353 U.S. 547Jun 2, 1957 · 353 U.S. 547Unions7–18–1 band
  17. National Labor Relations Board v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 449, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. L.353 U.S. 87Apr 1, 1957 · 353 U.S. 87Unions8–0Unanimous band
  18. Bakery Sales Drivers Local Union No. 33 et al. v. Wagshal, Trading As Wagshal's Delicatessen333 U.S. 437Mar 15, 1948 · 333 U.S. 437Unions5–36–3 band
  19. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. et al.331 U.S. 519Jun 9, 1947 · 331 U.S. 519Unions9–0Unanimous 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 argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.