Supreme Court Opinion – Created federal agencies need judicial oversight

Supreme Court Opinion – Created federal agencies need judicial oversight

Summary of the Opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court addressed the enduring precedent set by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which has shaped administrative law for four decades.

The Court’s decision in this case reaffirms and refines the principles of judicial deference to administrative agency interpretations of statutory mandates. The ruling has significant implications for regulatory authority and the balance of power between agencies and the judiciary.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

The Supreme Court decision on Friday, June 28, 2024 significantly limits federal agencies’ authority to interpret laws, requiring courts to rely on their own interpretations of ambiguous laws. This ruling is expected to have widespread impacts, affecting everything from environmental regulations to healthcare costs nationwide.

Detailed Analysis

Background and Lead Opinion

In Chevron, the Court established a two-step framework for courts to evaluate whether to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers. The Chevron doctrine stipulates that if a statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to the agency’s interpretation as long as it is reasonable.

This doctrine has allowed agencies considerable latitude in shaping policy and implementing regulations.

Key Points of the Opinion

Chevron Deference Revisited:

The Court in Loper Bright Enterprises took the opportunity to revisit the Chevron doctrine. The majority opinion reaffirmed the necessity of judicial deference to agency expertise but emphasized the importance of clear legislative mandates. The Court highlighted that deference is appropriate only when Congress has explicitly or implicitly delegated authority to the agency to make such interpretations.

Limits of Agency Authority: The opinion underscored the limits of agency power, cautioning against overreach. The Court stated that while agencies possess expertise, they should not extend their interpretations beyond the scope of their delegated authority. This aspect of the ruling seeks to prevent agencies from assuming legislative roles under the guise of interpreting ambiguous statutes.

Judicial Oversight: The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s role in ensuring that agencies operate within their statutory bounds. The Court stressed that ambiguous statutes do not automatically grant agencies the power to regulate as they see fit. Instead, courts must scrutinize whether the agency’s interpretation aligns with the statutory framework and Congressional intent.
Implications for Regulatory Agencies

Cannabis Regulatory Agencies in Michigan: For state agencies like those regulating cannabis in Michigan, this ruling emphasizes the need for clear statutory guidance. The agencies must ensure that their regulations and enforcement actions are firmly grounded in legislative mandates. This may require more detailed legislation from state lawmakers to provide a clear framework for agency actions.

Historical Context and Agency Overreach: Over the past 40 years, the Chevron doctrine has enabled various federal agencies to expand their regulatory reach.

However, there have been instances where courts have pushed back against perceived overreach. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are notable examples where judicial scrutiny has curtailed expansive interpretations of statutory authority.

Future Regulatory Landscape: Moving forward, regulatory agencies must navigate a more constrained environment where judicial deference is not guaranteed. Agencies must build robust records demonstrating that their interpretations are within the scope of their delegated authority and consistent with legislative intent. This may result in more conservative and narrowly tailored regulations.

What all that means in one long sentence: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo has reinforced judicial oversight over federal and state regulatory agencies and delineates the limits of agency authority for businesses and individuals, especially those involved in highly regulated industries such as cannabis meaning regulations made up by agencies need legislative OK.

At Komorn Law, we specialize in navigating the complex landscape of constitutional law. This recent Supreme Court decision illustrates the nuanced legal analyses and strategic thinking that we bring to our practice, ensuring that our clients receive informed and effective representation.

Our commitment to understanding and influencing the trajectory of legal standards helps us advocate for a balanced approach to individual rights and public safety.

Recent

Drones – What Drones?

Drones – What Drones?

Jersey cops launched into the night sky with catapults to throw dreamcatchers at the unknown drones to entangle their props and bring em down! Just kidding - I think.Darrr.. What drones? Those drones pose no threat there are no drones. That's just a balloon,...

read more
Cash For Kids Judge Pardoned (The Kickback Club)

Cash For Kids Judge Pardoned (The Kickback Club)

Biden’s commutation for Judge in ‘kids for cash’ scandal should anger the entire universe.Biden’s commutation in ‘kids for cash’ scandal. BY MICHAEL RUBINKAMUpdated 5:32 PM EST, December 13, 2024A judge implicated in one of the most notorious judicial scandals in U.S....

read more

Other Articles

Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason

Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason

Long Lake Township v. Maxon The Costs Outweigh Benefits in Exclusionary Rule Application and the Slippery Slope of Fourth Amendment ProtectionsThe recent decision by the Michigan Supreme Court in Long Lake Township v. Maxon represents a significant shift in the...

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal OffenseCarjacking, the act of forcibly stealing an occupied vehicle, has long been a concern for public safety. It was a local and state issue until a series of violent incidents in the early 1990s that carjacking became a federal...

MI Lawyer Weekly – Michigan’s Go To Lawyers for Cannabis Law

MI Lawyer Weekly – Michigan’s Go To Lawyers for Cannabis Law

Please join us in congratulating our inaugural Michigan’s Go To Lawyer for cannabis law. 

Michael Komorn, Komorn Law, Farmington Hills

Michigan Lawyers Weekly is pleased to announce the inaugural “Go To Lawyers” for cannabis law.

Now in its fifth year, the “Go To Lawyers” program recognizes top lawyers in a particular practice area.

Earlier this year, we celebrated “Go To Lawyers” for employment law and business transactions. In 2023, we featured top lawyers in construction law, business litigation, commercial real estate and negligence law, for plaintiffs’ and defense side, including medical malpractice, personal injury, premises liability and products liability.

A “Go To Lawyer” is:

  • A lawyer who is an expert in his or her field, well-versed in the nuances of the case law, statutes and regulations clients will encounter.
  • A lawyer who is experienced and enjoys a record of success, with many cases and/or transactions that give testimony to the quality advice he or she can provide.
  • A lawyer to whom other lawyers make referrals because of his or her expertise and accomplishments.
  • A lawyer who can think creatively and identify all options for a client.
  • A lawyer you would name when a friend from another state calls and says she has a client who needs some legal help in a given part of our state.
Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Recent

Drones – What Drones?

Drones – What Drones?

Jersey cops launched into the night sky with catapults to throw dreamcatchers at the unknown drones to entangle their props and bring em down! Just kidding - I think.Darrr.. What drones? Those drones pose no threat there are no drones. That's just a balloon,...

read more
Cash For Kids Judge Pardoned (The Kickback Club)

Cash For Kids Judge Pardoned (The Kickback Club)

Biden’s commutation for Judge in ‘kids for cash’ scandal should anger the entire universe.Biden’s commutation in ‘kids for cash’ scandal. BY MICHAEL RUBINKAMUpdated 5:32 PM EST, December 13, 2024A judge implicated in one of the most notorious judicial scandals in U.S....

read more

Other Articles

Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason

Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason

Long Lake Township v. Maxon The Costs Outweigh Benefits in Exclusionary Rule Application and the Slippery Slope of Fourth Amendment ProtectionsThe recent decision by the Michigan Supreme Court in Long Lake Township v. Maxon represents a significant shift in the...

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal OffenseCarjacking, the act of forcibly stealing an occupied vehicle, has long been a concern for public safety. It was a local and state issue until a series of violent incidents in the early 1990s that carjacking became a federal...

Chinese-funded marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.

Chinese-funded marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.

Inside the Chinese-funded and staffed marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.

During a farm inspection, New Mexico state special agents discovered an excessive number of cannabis plants in violation of state laws. Subsequent visits revealed dozens of underfed and shell-shocked Chinese workers on the premises, raising concerns about their wellbeing.

The workers said they had been trafficked to the farm in Torrance County, N.M., were prevented from leaving and never got paid.

They are part of a new pipeline of migrants “leaving” China and making illegal border crossings into the United States via Mexico, and many are taking jobs at hundreds of cannabis farms springing up across the U.S.

Read the rest from a once great and still public funded NPR

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

SCRUTINY CHALLENGES MICHIGAN’S INVESTMENT IN EV BATTERY PLANT

A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw

A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw

A Case Summary: People v. Blake Anthony-William BartonOn October 11, 2024, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a decision in the case People of the State of Michigan v. Blake Anthony-William Barton. The case involved a drunk driving  investigation following a car...

read more
Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive

Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive

Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive. Critics call it ‘utter nonsense’Haley Butler-Moore sped up to pass a semi on the highway when she suddenly saw the police lights. She’d left Albuquerque hours earlier, heading to a Halloween party in Denver. Tired...

read more

Other Articles

The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Vehicle Information)

The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Vehicle Information)

Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your Driver License and Motor Vehicle Information privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to protecting the privacy of your potentially personally identifiable data...

The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Biometric Information)

The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Biometric Information)

Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your DNA / biometric privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to protecting the privacy of your potentially personally identifiable data (PPID) in a strong and...

The MSP and Your Privacy (Criminal History)

The MSP and Your Privacy (Criminal History)

Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your criminal history privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to protecting the privacy of your potentially personally identifiable data (PPID) in a strong and...

The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment: is it still a thing?The 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution is a crucial pillar of the Bill of Rights, designed to ensure fair and just legal proceedings for individuals accused of crimes. Ratified on December 15, 1791, this amendment...

Oakland County Sheriff’s deputy fatally shot in ‘ambush’ while following stolen car

Oakland County Sheriff’s deputy fatally shot in ‘ambush’ while following stolen car

Oakland County Sheriff’s deputy fatally shot in ‘ambush’ while following stolen car

A deputy investigating a stolen car was shot to death Saturday night in Detroit in what Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard called an ambush.

Oakland County Sheriff’s Deputy Bradley Reckling, a detective, was following a stolen vehicle when several individuals exited the vehicle and shot Reckling in the head and chest, according to the agency’s preliminary investigation.

Reckling was following the 2022 Chevy Equinox after it was reported stolen earlier in the day from Red Oaks Waterpark in Madison Heights, Bouchard said at a Sunday news conference.

The sheriff office’s auto theft unit was looped in to look for the Equinox. Reckling was actively searching for and located the vehicle in Detroit and followed it in an unmarked vehicle. Two other detectives were nearby in their own vehicles.

The Equinox eventually stopped, individuals exited the vehicle and fired upon Reckling,” Bouchard said.

“It was an ambush,” Bouchard said.

Read the rest here at the Detroit Free Press

Michigan Line of Duty Deaths

City by City —> Here

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw

A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw

A Case Summary: People v. Blake Anthony-William BartonOn October 11, 2024, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a decision in the case People of the State of Michigan v. Blake Anthony-William Barton. The case involved a drunk driving  investigation following a car...

read more
Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive

Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive

Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive. Critics call it ‘utter nonsense’Haley Butler-Moore sped up to pass a semi on the highway when she suddenly saw the police lights. She’d left Albuquerque hours earlier, heading to a Halloween party in Denver. Tired...

read more

Other Articles

The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Vehicle Information)

The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Vehicle Information)

Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your Driver License and Motor Vehicle Information privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to protecting the privacy of your potentially personally identifiable data...

The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Biometric Information)

The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Biometric Information)

Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your DNA / biometric privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to protecting the privacy of your potentially personally identifiable data (PPID) in a strong and...

The MSP and Your Privacy (Criminal History)

The MSP and Your Privacy (Criminal History)

Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your criminal history privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to protecting the privacy of your potentially personally identifiable data (PPID) in a strong and...

The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment: is it still a thing?The 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution is a crucial pillar of the Bill of Rights, designed to ensure fair and just legal proceedings for individuals accused of crimes. Ratified on December 15, 1791, this amendment...

Vehicle Forfeiture in Canada – The Process of Taking

Vehicle Forfeiture in Canada – The Process of Taking

Thank You… and have a nice day eh!

Disclaimer: We are not Attorneys in Canada.  This is an article of information obtained from various sources and presented here. We can only assume they are accurate.  If you ever find a reason to go to Canada and need a lawyer…we wish you luck. Assume you do not have the rights a Canadian citizen would have and only be given basic human rights.

In Canada, vehicle forfeiture is a legal process that allows the government to permanently take possession of a vehicle. Let’s explore the reasons behind vehicle forfeiture and the steps involved.

Reasons for Vehicle Seizure:

Commission of a Crime:

  • Law enforcement agencies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), can seize a vehicle temporarily if it is being used in the commission of a crime or if it serves as evidence of a crime.
  • Additionally, vehicles may be seized if they are abandoned or driven by someone prohibited from driving.

Violation of Laws or Regulations:

  • Vehicles can be seized if their owners violate certain laws or regulations. Examples include driving without valid insurance or registration or possessing a learner’s permit without an appropriate accompanying driver.

Vehicle Forfeiture:

Permanent Taking:

  • Vehicle forfeiture occurs after a legal process, usually when the vehicle was used in a crime or represents proceeds of crime (e.g., drug trafficking, money laundering).
  • Unlike seizure, forfeiture results in the permanent loss of the vehicle to the government.

Notification and Claim Process:

  • When a vehicle is seized, the owner is notified of the seizure and provided with information about the reason.
  • If the vehicle is not needed as evidence, the owner can reclaim it by following these steps:
    1. Contact the agency that seized the vehicle for specific requirements.
    2. Prove ownership with documentation (e.g., vehicle registration, bill of sale).
    3. Pay any fines or fees associated with the seizure.
    4. Retrieve the vehicle.

APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT
When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong.
Call Komorn Law
 (248) 357-2550

Civil Forfeiture Laws:

  • Canada’s civil forfeiture laws allow provincial governments to seize property without compensation when it is suspected of being used to commit an illegal act or acquired through illegal means.

 

Conclusion:

Understanding the difference between vehicle seizure and forfeiture is crucial. If your vehicle is subject to forfeiture, seek legal representation to navigate the process and protect your rights.

For more detailed information, you can refer to the full article.

Please note that this summary provides an overview, and it is recommend you consult legal professionals for personalized advice. 

Does Canada follow the US Constitution?

The U.S. Constitution spells out the specific powers of Congress, leaving everything else to the states. The Canadian Constitution does the opposite.

Provinces are limited to the powers explicitly given them by the Canadian Constitution and everything else is under the purview of the federal Parliament.

Canadian Bill of Rights

The Canadian Encyclopedia
The Canadian Bill of Rights recognizes the rights of individuals to life, liberty, personal security, and enjoyment of property. (It does not recognize “possession” of property, …

Want to learn more about the Canadian Charter of “Rights and Freedoms”.
Go here —> Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

In the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
When you need to go on the offense – to put the prosecution on defense
Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.

Michigan Workers Right to Protest – Can They Force a Change in Business Strategy?

Michigan Workers Right to Protest – Can They Force a Change in Business Strategy?

Michigan Workers and the Right to Protest: Can They Force a Change in Business Strategy?

The ever-evolving economic landscape can create friction between Michigan workers and their employers. Workers may find themselves at odds with company strategies or investments, leading to protests aimed at forcing a change. But what legal rights do these workers have, and can they truly compel an alteration in business direction?

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Framework

The foundation for worker protest rights in Michigan lies in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935. This federal law guarantees workers the right to engage in “concerted activities” for the purpose of “collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” However, the NLRA doesn’t grant a blank check for protest.

The key lies in the distinction between protected and unprotected activities.

Protected Protests: When Workers Have a Voice

Protected protests focus on issues directly related to the terms and conditions of employment, which are core subjects of collective bargaining. Examples include strikes or rallies over:

Wages and Benefits: Negotiations for fairer pay, improved health insurance plans, or additional paid time off fall under this category.

Job Security: Protests against layoffs, plant closures, or outsourcing of jobs directly impact job security, a core bargaining right. The seminal case, NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. (1938) [URL nlrb v mackay radio & telegraph co 1938 ON Cornell University law.cornell.edu], established the right to strike over unfair labor practices that threaten job security.

Working Conditions: Protests concerning safety standards, excessive overtime, or unfair disciplinary actions are protected activities.

APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT
When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong.
Call Komorn Law
 (248) 357-2550

Unprotected Protests: When Business Decisions Hold Sway

Protests targeting broader business decisions, such as:

Plant Closures or Relocations: These decisions often involve complex economic factors beyond just labor costs. The NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1956) case exemplifies this.

Here, the closure was deemed outside the scope of mandatory bargaining as it wasn’t solely motivated by labor costs.

Product Development: Worker protests against specific product lines or company investments fall outside the scope of core bargaining rights.

Strategies for Effective Protests, Even When Business Strategy Reigns Supreme

While forcing a change in business strategy might be challenging, effective worker protests can still achieve significant results:

Focus on Core Bargaining Rights: Frame protests around the impact of the business decision on wages, benefits, or job security.

Negotiate with Management: Open communication with management can unearth underlying reasons for the decision and explore possible alternatives.

Union Strength: Unionized workers have greater leverage in negotiations and may have more protected activity under collective bargaining agreements.

Public Pressure: Utilize media outreach to raise awareness about the impact of the decision on workers and the local economy.

Political Advocacy: Lobby representatives to push for policies that protect worker interests in plant closures or relocations.

or just quit and go work at the record store.

Here are some of the laws in Michigan regarding employment relations…enjoy.

MCL – Act 176 of 1939

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
Act 176 of 1939
AN ACT to create a commission relative to labor disputes, and to prescribe its powers and duties; to provide for the mediation and arbitration of labor disputes, and the holding of elections thereon; to regulate the conduct of parties to labor disputes and to require the parties to follow certain procedures; to regulate and limit the right to strike and picket; to protect the rights and privileges of employees, including the right to organize and engage in lawful concerted activities; to protect the rights and privileges of employers; to make certain acts unlawful; to make appropriations; and to prescribe means of enforcement and penalties for violations of this act.
The “People” of the State of Michigan enact:
Document Type Description
Section 423.1 Section Declaration of public policy.
Section 423.2 Section Definitions.
Section 423.3 Section Employment relations commission; creation; appointment, qualifications, and terms of commissioners.
Section 423.4 Section Employment relations commission; oath of commissioners; vacancies; chairman; removal; quorum; seal.
Section 423.5 Section Employment relations commission; compensation and expenses of commissioners and employees.
Section 423.6 Section Repealed. 1978, Act 250, Imd. Eff. June 20, 1978.
Section 423.7 Section Employment relations commission; principal office; office space; rules.
Section 423.7a Section Employment relations commission; conducting business at public meeting; notice of meeting; availability of certain writings to public.
Section 423.8 Section Employees; rights.
Section 423.9 Section Prerequisites for strike or lockout; notice of dispute and statement of issues; mediation.
Section 423.9a Section Election in case of impending strike; conduct and supervision; time; persons entitled to vote; secret ballot; place; rules; absentee voting; hearing on eligibility to vote; determination.
Section 423.9b, 423.9c Section Repealed. 1978, Act 250, Imd. Eff. June 20, 1978.
Section 423.9d Section Voluntary arbitration; existing collective agreement as binding on parties; agreement to arbitrate; designation of arbitrator; expense of arbitration; enforcement of agreement; hearings; notice; procedure; transcript; findings; opinion and award; enforcement of award.
Section 423.9e Section Bargaining unit.
Section 423.9f Section Mass picketing; threats or force, picketing private residence, misdemeanor.
Section 423.9g Section Copy or statement of most recent offer submitted by employer to bargaining unit.
Section 423.10 Section Steps by commission to effect settlement.
Section 423.11 Section Hearings; witnesses; oaths; evidence; subpoena; order requiring appearance; contempt; service of process or papers; proof of service.
Section 423.12 Section Disqualification of commissioner.
Section 423.13-423.13g Section Repealed. 1978, Act 250, Imd. Eff. June 20, 1978.
Section 423.14 Section Collective bargaining agreement between employer and labor organization; sharing of financial support of labor organization; payment of dues; condition of employment; appropriation.
Section 423.15 Section Unlawful possession of property; penalty.
Section 423.16 Section Company unions; interference with unions and discrimination prohibited.
Section 423.17 Section Prohibited conduct; violation; civil fine.
Section 423.17a Section Unlawful picketing to force recognition or bargain with labor organization.
Section 423.19 Section Liberal construction of act; police powers.
Section 423.20 Section Expenses paid from legislated appropriations.
Section 423.22 Section Unlawful acts; legal or equitable remedy.
Section 423.22a Section Repealed. 1949, Act 230, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1949.
Section 423.23 Section Review of rulings or orders by supreme court; exceptions; violations of certain provisions as unfair labor practices; remedies; procedures.
Section 423.24 Section Conspiracy; penalty.
Section 423.25 Section Written findings as to matters in disagreement; availability of writings to public.
Section 423.25a Section Confidential information.
Section 423.26 Section Collective bargaining representatives; duties; grievances by individual employee; adjustment.
Section 423.27 Section Petition as to representation; investigation; hearing; election.
Section 423.28 Section Determination of appropriate unit for collective bargaining.
Section 423.29 Section Directing election in bargaining unit; eligibility to vote; rules; rerun and runoff elections; election on petition of persons not parties to collective bargaining agreement.
Section 423.30 Section Duty to bargain; collective bargaining, definition.

Conclusion

While Michigan law protects worker protest rights, there’s a fine line between influencing company strategy and exceeding the boundaries of protected activity. By focusing on core bargaining rights, employing strategic protest tactics, and understanding the legal framework, Michigan workers can effectively advocate for their interests. But can also hear the words… You’re fired. We are moving overseas.

Consulting with legal counsel specializing in labor law is crucial when navigating the complexities of protest rights and business decision-making.

In the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
When you need to go on the offense – to put the prosecution on defense
Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.