← Cases

LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

596 U.S. 242 Court SCOTUS Decision date 2022-04-28 Docket 20-807 English

Delivered by None

Contents

Per Curiam

p. 242
LeDURE v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for

the seventh circuit No. 20–807. Argued March 28, 2022—Decided April 28, 2022

962 F. 3d 907, affirmed by an equally divided Court.

David C. Frederick argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Bradley E. Oppenheimer, Nelson G. Wolff, and Jerome J. Schlichter.

Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae supporting petitioner. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Prelogar, Acting Assistant Attorney General Boynton, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Daniel Tenny, Joshua M. Koppel, Paul M. Geier, Paula Lee, and Rebecca S. Behravesh.

J. Scott Ballenger argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Tyce R. Walters, J. Timothy Eaton, and Jonathan B. Amarilio.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

*Lawrence M. Mann, Kevin Brodar, and Joseph M. Sayler filed a brief for the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers-Transportation Division et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Association of American Railroads by Daniel Saphire and Joseph G. St. Peter; and for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. by Carter G. Phillips, Tobias S. Loss-Eaton, and Andrew R. Varcoe. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

p. 243
Reporter’s Note

The attached opinion has been revised to refect the usual publication and citation style of the United States Reports. The revised pagination makes available the official United States Reports citation in advance of publication. The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court. A list of counsel who argued or filed briefs in this case, and who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was argued, has been inserted following the syllabus. Other revisions may include adjustments to formatting, captions, citation form, and any errant punctuation. The following additional edits were made: None

Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Cases cited

  • 962 F. 3d 907 962 F. 3d 907 p. 242