- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 2 Jul 1984 · read from the court record
- Court
- U.S. Supreme Court (from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 709 F.2d 815 (1983)) · Supreme or high court
- Docket
- 83-498; 83-573 (Danziger v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees, consolidated)
- Judge
- Justice O'Connor (majority); Justice White (dissent, joined by Powell and Stevens); Brennan and Marshall took no part
- Filed
- not on record
- Type
- Constitutional challenge, licensing and administrative court cases
- Money
- No settlement fund or award on record
- Payout
- No payout exists as of 14 Nov 2026
Status words follow the court record: a complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. Filing a settlement claim is always free.
What this case is about
New Jersey's Casino Control Act barred unions representing casino employees from being led by officers with organised-crime associations and let the Commission stop a union from collecting dues if it did not remove them. The Third Circuit held the scheme preempted by the NLRA. Argued 26 March 1984 and decided 2 July 1984, the Supreme Court (O'Connor, J.) vacated and remanded: the qualification standards of § 86, applied through § 93, do not actually conflict with employees' § 7 right to choose their representatives, in light of the LMRDA and Congress's approval of similar standards in the New York Waterfront Commission compact (De Veau); whether the dues-collection sanction would prevent the union from functioning was left for remand. White, Powell and Stevens dissented. The case is the constitutional basis for the probity controls that casino regulators impose on unions, vendors and executives.
What this case is about
Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union Local 54, 468 U.S. 491 (1984), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision, docket Nos. 83-498 and 83-573 (consolidated with Danziger v.
Hotel and Restaurant Employees). It came from the Third Circuit, 709 F.2d 815 (1983), and belongs to our hub on licensing and administrative court cases.
New Jersey's Casino Control Act barred unions representing casino employees from being led by officers with organized-crime associations (§ 86). Under § 93 the Casino Control Commission could stop a union from collecting dues if it did not remove them.
Local 54, an Atlantic City casino workers' union, challenged the disqualification of its officers. It argued that the National Labor Relations Act § 7 preempted the state scheme, and the Third Circuit agreed.
Who is covered
The ruling covers officers of unions that represent casino employees in New Jersey and the state officials who enforce the Casino Control Act. The defendants were Brown, Chairman of the Casino Control Commission, and others, plus the officials in the companion Danziger petition.
State casino regulation across the country is collected under gambling lawsuits in the United States.
New Jersey matters are listed on the page for every gambling lawsuit in New Jersey.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. It is a constitutional preemption dispute between a union and state officials, with no fund, settlement or claim process, and the record shows no damages.
What the court decided
The case was argued on 26 March 1984 and decided on 2 July 1984. Justice O'Connor wrote for the Court, which vacated the Third Circuit judgment and remanded.
The Court held that the qualification standards of § 86, applied through § 93, do not conflict with employees' § 7 right to choose their representatives. It relied on the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act and on Congress's approval of similar standards in the New York Waterfront Commission compact (De Veau).
Whether the dues-collection sanction would prevent the union from functioning was left for the remand. Justice White dissented, joined by Justices Powell and Stevens, and Justices Brennan and Marshall took no part. The decision is final as to the preemption holding.
Why it matters
The case is the constitutional basis for the probity controls that casino regulators impose on unions, vendors and executives. States can screen who leads casino-related organizations without running into federal labor law.
The decision is one of the oldest anchors among licensing and administrative court cases in our collection.
Questions people ask
Did the Supreme Court find the New Jersey law preempted?
No. The Court held that the standards of § 86, applied through § 93, do not actually conflict with the NLRA § 7 right of employees to choose their representatives.
What happened to the dues-collection sanction?
The Court left open whether the sanction would prevent the union from functioning. It sent that question back to the lower court on remand.
Who dissented?
Justice White dissented, joined by Justices Powell and Stevens. Justices Brennan and Marshall took no part in the decision.
Related cases
- City of Revere and Mohegan Sun Massachusetts v. Massachusetts Gaming Commission: a challenge to the Wynn Everett licence, judgment entered.
- United States v. Scott Sibella: a Bank Secrecy Act prosecution of a casino executive, judgment entered.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union Local 54 (Atlantic City casino workers' union) challenging the Casino Control Commission's disqualification of its officers
| Defendants | Brown (Chairman, New Jersey Casino Control Commission) and others; Danziger and others (New Jersey officials, companion petition) |
|---|---|
| Judge | Justice O'Connor (majority); Justice White (dissent, joined by Powell and Stevens); Brennan and Marshall took no part |
| Claims |
|
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026.
What happens next
No future date is on the record we hold. The case is closed on the record we hold; later appeals or enforcement steps would be added here.
Timeline
1 dated step on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2 Jul 1984 | Judgment entered |
Documents and sources
1 primary source (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Court document: law.cornell.edu
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nos. 83-498 and 83-573; argued March 26, 1984; decided July 2, 1984; O'Connor for the Court; White dissenting with Powell and Stevens; Brennan and Marshall took no part; Third Circuit 709 F.2d 815 vacated and remanded; §§ 86 and 93 Casino Control Act not preempted by NLRA § 7; dues-collection sanction remanded | law.cornell.edu | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
2 cases in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Mohegan Sun challenge to the Wynn Everett licence | Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts; Suffolk Superior Court | Judgment entered |
| Ex-MGM Grand president Bank Secrecy Act plea | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California | Judgment entered |
Last checked against the sources on 14 Nov 2026. Found an error? Tell us and we correct the record with a dated note.