Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

PERRY et al. v. THOMAS (1987)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
PERRY et al. v. THOMAS
Term: 1986
Important Dates
Argued: April 28, 1987
Decided: June 15, 1987
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
7-2
Majority
Harry BlackmunWilliam BrennanThurgood MarshallLewis PowellWilliam RehnquistAntonin ScaliaByron White
Dissenting
Sandra Day O'ConnorJohn Paul Stevens

PERRY et al. v. THOMAS is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 15, 1987. The case was argued before the court on April 28, 1987.

In a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. The case originated from the California State Trial Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1980s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Rehnquist Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Federalism - federal pre-emption of state legislation or regulation. cf. state regulation of business. rarely involves union activity. Does not involve constitutional interpretation unless the Court says it does.
  • Petitioner: Employee, or job applicant, including beneficiaries of
  • Petitioner state: Unknown
  • Respondent type: employer. If employer's relations with employees are governed by the nature of the employer's business (e.g., railroad, boat), rather than labor law generally, the more specific designation is used in place of Employer.
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 482 U.S. 483
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Appeal
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: William Rehnquist
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: Thurgood Marshall

These data points were accessed from The Supreme Court Database, which also attempts to categorize the ideological direction of the court's ruling in each case. This case's ruling was categorized as liberal.

See also

External links

Footnotes