Golden State Transit Corporation v. City of Los Angeles

PETITIONER: Golden State Transit Corporation
RESPONDENT: City of Los Angeles
LOCATION: Buie Residence

DOCKET NO.: 88-840
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

CITATION: 493 US 103 (1989)
ARGUED: Oct 03, 1989
DECIDED: Dec 05, 1989

ADVOCATES:
John Haggerty - on behalf of the Respondent
Zachary D. Fasman - on behalf of the Petitioner

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Golden State Transit Corporation v. City of Los Angeles

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 03, 1989 in Golden State Transit Corporation v. City of Los Angeles

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - December 05, 1989 in Golden State Transit Corporation v. City of Los Angeles

William H. Rehnquist:

The opinion of the Court in No. 88-840, Goldent State Transit Corporation versus the City of Los Angeles will be announced by Justice Stevens.

John Paul Stevens:

In 1980, the petitioner operated some 400 taxi cabs in the City of Los Angeles.

When its franchise came up for renewal, its drivers were on strike, and the city refused to renew its franchise unless petitioners settled with the Union.

Three years ago, in a case with the same name, we held that the city’s decision to condition the renewal of petitioner’s cab franchise on the settlement of a pending labor dispute violated the National Labor Relations Act.

On remand, the District Court enjoined the city to reinstate the franchise.

It held that petitioner had no right to recover compensatory damages under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code.

The United Sates Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed and we granted certiorari.

For reasons stated in an opinion filed with the Clerk, we hold that the National Labor Relations Act creates rights in labor and in management that are enforceable against governmental interference under Section 1983.

We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Justice Kennedy has filed a dissenting opinion in which the Chief Justice and Justice O’Connor have joined.