Alito, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 21–1454
THE OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
[May 18, 2023]
Justice Alito, with whom Justice Gorsuch joins, dissenting.
Petitioners, the Ohio National Guard, the Ohio Adjutant General, and the Ohio Adjutant General’s Department, challenge the lawfulness of an order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). That order directs petitioners to honor their existing agreement with the union that represents the dual-status civilian technicians who are members of the Ohio National Guard and to bargain in good faith with the union in the future. The Court correctly observes that the FLRA’s ability to enter such an order against petitioners “turns on whether petitioners are an ‘agency’ for purposes of the” Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. Ante, at 5; see 5 U. S. C. §7105(g)(3). But the Court stops short of answering that question, holding instead that petitioners “act as a federal ‘agency,’ ” ante, at 1, “exercise the authority of” a covered agency, ante, at 7, and even “functio[n] as an agency,” ante, at 6. Because petitioners are not actually federal agencies, a proposition that the Court does not dispute, the FLRA lacks jurisdiction to enter remedial orders against them.
I
These dual-status civilian technicians are indeed strange
