Court Opinion

ID: 9395550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 15:01:02.840693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:09.393321
License: Public Domain

(Slip Opinion)              OCTOBER TERM, 2022                                       1

                                       Syllabus

         NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
       being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
       The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
       prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
       See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

                                       Syllabus

OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT ET AL. v.
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
                  THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

     No. 21–1454. Argued January 9, 2023—Decided May 18, 2023
The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS)
  provides for collective bargaining between federal agencies and their
  employees’ unions; bars each from committing unfair labor practices;
  and establishes the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to in-
  vestigate and adjudicate labor disputes. See 5 U. S. C. §7101 et seq.
  At issue here, the American Federation of Government Employees, Lo-
  cal 3970, AFL–CIO is the exclusive representative of certain federal
  civil-service employees known as dual-status technicians who work for
  the Ohio National Guard. After their prior collective-bargaining
  agreement (CBA) expired, petitioners here—the Ohio National Guard,
  the Ohio Adjutant General, and the Ohio Adjutant General’s Depart-
  ment (collectively the Guard)—asserted that the Guard was not bound
  by the FSLMRS when interacting with the Guard’s dual-status tech-
  nicians. The Union subsequently filed an unfair labor practice com-
  plaint with the FLRA to resolve the dispute. Pointing to the fact that
  the FLRA only has jurisdiction over labor organizations and federal
  agencies, petitioners argued that the Guard was not an “agency” and
  that dual-status technician bargaining-unit employees were not “em-
  ployees” for purposes of the FSLMRS. The Administrative Law Judge
  issued a recommended decision finding that: the FLRA had jurisdic-
  tion over the Guard; the dual-status technicians had collective-bar-
  gaining rights under the FSLMRS; and the Guard’s actions in repudi-
  ating the CBA violated the FSLMRS. A divided panel of the FLRA
  adopted the ALJ’s findings, conclusions, and remedial order. Petition-
  ers sought review in the Sixth Circuit, which denied relief.
Held: The FLRA had jurisdiction over this labor dispute because a State
 National Guard acts as a federal agency for purposes of the FSLMRS
2            OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL’S DEPT. v. FLRA

                                  Syllabus

    when it hires and supervises dual-status technicians serving in their
    civilian role.
       The question whether petitioners are an “agency” for purposes of the
    FSLMRS when they act as supervisors of dual-status technicians is
    bounded by a series of defined statutory terms. 5 U. S. C. §7116(a)(1).
    The FSLMRS defines “agency” to include the Department of Defense.
    §7103(a)(3). And each dual-status “technician . . . is an employee of
    the Department of the Army or the Department of the Air Force,” 32
    U. S. C. §709(e); see also 10 U. S. C. §10216(a)(1)(A). Those Depart-
    ments, in turn, are components of the Department of Defense.
    §§111(b)(6) and (8). Components of covered agencies plainly fall within
    the reach of the FSLMRS. See 5 U. S. C. §§7103(a)(12), 7112(a). Thus,
    when petitioners employ dual-status technicians, they—like compo-
    nents of an agency—exercise the authority of the Department of De-
    fense, a covered agency.
       The statutory authority permitting the Ohio Adjutant General to
    employ dual-status technicians as civilian employees in the federal
    civil service reinforces this point. See 5 U. S. C. §2105(a)(1)(F). Con-
    gress has required the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force to “des-
    ignate” adjutants general “to employ and administer” technicians. 32
    U. S. C. §709(d). That designation is the sole basis for petitioners’ au-
    thority to employ technicians performing work in their federal civilian
    roles. Here, a 1968 order of the Secretary of the Army “designate[s]”
    and “empower[s]” each adjutant general “to employ and administer the
    Army National Guard technicians authorized for his State . . . as the
    case may be.” General Order No. 85, ¶3. Accordingly, dual-status
    technicians are ultimately employees of the Secretaries of the Army
    and the Air Force, and petitioners are the Secretaries’ designees for
    purposes of dual-status technician employment. Should a state adju-
    tant general wish to employ federal dual-status technicians, the adju-
    tant general must do so pursuant to delegated federal authority and
    subject to federal civil-service requirements.          See 5 U. S. C.
    §2105(a)(1)(F).
       The evolution of federal agency-employee relations law and the text
    of §7135(b) lend further support to the FLRA’s exercise of authority
    over the Guard. Section 7135(b) explicitly continues prior practice un-
    der the provisions of Executive Order No. 11491—the precursor to the
    FSLMRS—except where specifically revoked by the President or al-
    tered by the FSLMRS or corresponding regulations. The 1971 decision
    in Thompson Field is on point. See Mississippi National Guard, 172d
    Military Airlift Group (Thompson Field), Asst. Sec. Labor/Manage-
    ment Reports (A/SLMR) No. 20. There, the Assistant Secretary of La-
    bor—exercising adjudicative authority under Executive Order No.
    11491 analogous to the FLRA’s—held that Mississippi’s National
                     Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)                   3

                               Syllabus

  Guard technicians were employees of the Federal Government under
  Executive Order No. 11491. The Assistant Secretary concluded that
  the State’s adjutant general had “been designated as an agent of the
  Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force” in employing and adminis-
  tering dual-status technicians and that this agency relationship cre-
  ated the obligation to comply with Executive Order No. 11491. Id., at
  7. The definitions of “employee” and “agency” that Thompson Field
  examined were materially identical to those that Congress ultimately
  adopted in the FSLMRS. The Court thus ordinarily presumes that the
  FSLMRS maintained the same coverage that existed under the prior
  regime, see, e.g., George v. McDonough, 596 U. S. ___, ___, and the
  Court identifies nothing to weaken that presumption here. Pp. 5–11.
21 F. 4th 401, affirmed.

  THOMAS, J. delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J,
and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.
ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined.
                       Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)                              1

                            Opinion of the Court

    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
    United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
    Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,
    pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
                                  _________________

                                  No. 21–1454
                                  _________________

 THE OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT,
     ET AL., PETITIONERS v. FEDERAL LABOR
          RELATIONS AUTHORITY, ET AL.
 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
            APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
                                [May 18, 2023]

   JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
   This case requires us to determine whether the Federal
Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) properly exercised juris-
diction over an unfair labor practices dispute. On one side
were the Ohio National Guard, the Ohio Adjutant General,
and the Ohio Adjutant General’s Department (collectively
petitioners or the Guard). On the other was the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 3970, AFL–
CIO (Union), which represents federal employees known as
dual-status technicians who work in both civilian and mili-
tary roles for the Guard.
   The Union petitioned the FLRA to resolve the dispute.
But, under the Federal Service Labor-Management Rela-
tions Statute (FSLMRS or Statute), the FLRA only has ju-
risdiction over labor organizations and federal “agencies”—
and petitioners insist that they are neither. 5 U. S. C.
§7101 et seq. We hold, however, that petitioners act as a
federal “agency” when they hire and supervise dual-status
technicians serving in their civilian role.
2         OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL’S DEPT. v. FLRA

                      Opinion of the Court

                                I
                                A
   Enacted in 1978, the FSLMRS establishes a comprehen-
sive framework governing labor-management relations in
federal agencies. It secures the right of “[e]ach employee”
“to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to refrain
from any such activity, freely and without fear of penalty or
reprisal.” §7102. And, it further guarantees that “each em-
ployee shall be protected in the exercise of such right.” Ibid.
To that end, the FSLMRS provides for collective bargaining
between federal agencies and their employees’ unions, and
it bars each from committing unfair labor practices. See
§§7102(2) and 7116(a)–(b). For example, an agency may not
“interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the ex-
ercise by the employee of any right under” the Statute; “re-
fuse to consult or negotiate in good faith with a labor organ-
ization as required by” the Statute; or “otherwise fail or
refuse to comply with any provision of ” the Statute.
§§7116(a)(1), (5), (8).
   The Statute creates the FLRA and tasks it with adminis-
tering this framework, including by investigating and adju-
dicating labor disputes. §7105(a)(2)(G); see also §§7104 and
7118(a)(1). It provides that the FLRA’s general counsel
“shall investigate” a charge against “any agency or labor or-
ganization” and, if warranted, may issue a complaint call-
ing for a hearing before the FLRA. §§7118(a)(1)–(2). The
FLRA is then responsible for “conduct[ing] hearings and re-
solv[ing such] complaints.” §7105(a)(2)(G). If the FLRA de-
termines that an agency or a union has engaged in an un-
fair labor practice, it “may require” the entity “to cease and
desist from violations of [the Statute] and require it to take
any remedial action it considers appropriate.” §7105(g)(3).
   This case concerns the Statute’s application to a unique
category of federal civil-service employees: dual-status
technicians working for the State National Guards. These
                  Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)             3

                      Opinion of the Court

“rare bird[s]” occupy both civilian and military roles. Bab-
cock v. Kijakazi, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 2).
They serve as “civilian employee[s]” engaged in “organizing,
administering, instructing,” “training,” or “maintenance
and repair of supplies” to assist the National Guard. 10
U. S. C. §10216(a)(1)(C); see 32 U. S. C. §§709(a)(1)–(2);
Babcock, 595 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 2). Yet, they must “as
a condition of that employment . . . maintain membership
in the [National Guard]” and wear a uniform while work-
ing.     10 U. S. C. §10216(a)(1)(B); see 32 U. S. C.
§§709(b)(2)–(4). Except when participating as National
Guard members in part-time drills, training, or active-duty
deployment, see 32 U. S. C. §§502(a) and 709(g)(2), dual-
status technicians work full time in a civilian capacity and
receive federal civil-service pay. See Babcock, 595 U. S., at
___–___ (slip op., at 2–3); see also 5 U. S. C. §2101(a).
   Importantly, under the Technicians Act of 1968, each
dual-status technician is considered “an employee of the
Department of the Army or the Department of the Air
Force, as the case may be, and an employee of the United
States.” 32 U. S. C. §709(e). While it is state adjutants gen-
eral who “employ and administer” dual-status technicians
working for their respective State National Guard units,
they can only do so pursuant to an express “designat[ion]”
of authority by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary
of the Air Force. §709(d); see also Dept. of the Army, S.
Resor, Delegation of Authority Under the National Guard
Technicians Act of 1968 (General Order 85, Dec. 31, 1968)
(General Order 85) (current order designating the relevant
authority).
                              B
  The parties’ collective-bargaining relationship dates back
to 1971, when the Guard recognized the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of its dual-status technicians. They
have since negotiated a number of collective-bargaining
4        OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL’S DEPT. v. FLRA

                     Opinion of the Court

agreements (CBAs), the most recent of which was signed in
2011 and expired in 2014. As the expiration date neared,
the Guard and the Union entered into negotiations for a
new agreement. During this process, in March 2016, they
adopted a memorandum of understanding whereby the
Ohio Adjutant General promised to abide by certain prac-
tices contained in the expired agreement. But, later that
year, the Ohio Adjutant General’s Department reversed
course. It asserted that it was not bound by the expired
CBA and did not consider itself bound by the FSLMRS
when interacting with dual-status technicians. The Guard
also sent letters to dual-status technician Union members,
asking them to submit the requisite forms to permit the de-
duction of Union dues from their pay. The letters advised
that, if the technicians did not promptly submit the forms,
the Guard would cancel dues deductions on their behalf.
The Guard ultimately terminated dues withholding for 89
technicians.
   The Union subsequently filed unfair labor practice
charges with the FLRA. After investigating, the FLRA gen-
eral counsel issued consolidated complaints against the
“U. S. Department of Defense, Ohio National Guard,” alleg-
ing that the Guard had refused to negotiate in good faith
and interfered with the exercise of employee rights under
the Statute through its treatment of technicians’ dues de-
ductions. App. 16. The Ohio Adjutant General and the
Ohio Adjutant General’s Department intervened on the
side of the Ohio National Guard.
   Petitioners argued before the Administrative Law Judge
that the Guard was not an “agency” and that dual-status
technician bargaining-unit employees were not “employees”
for purposes of the Statute. The Administrative Law Judge
issued a recommended decision finding that the FLRA had
jurisdiction over the Guard, that the dual-status techni-
cians had collective-bargaining rights under the Statute,
                     Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)                     5

                          Opinion of the Court

and that the Guard’s actions in repudiating the CBA vio-
lated the Statute. It thus ordered petitioners to follow the
mandatory terms of the 2011 CBA, bargain in good faith
going forward, and reinstate Union dues withholding. A di-
vided panel of the FLRA adopted the Administrative Law
Judge’s findings, conclusions, and remedial order.
  The Guard petitioned for review in the U. S. Court of Ap-
peals for the Sixth Circuit, which denied the petition. 21
F. 4th 401 (2021). The Sixth Circuit held that the Guard is
an agency subject to the Statute when it operates in its ca-
pacity as employer of dual-status technicians. The court
further found that dual-status technicians are federal civil-
ian employees with collective-bargaining rights under the
Statute. Thus, because the FLRA has authority to enforce
those collective-bargaining rights, the court concluded that
this dispute fell within its jurisdiction.
  We granted certiorari to consider whether the FLRA had
jurisdiction over this labor dispute under the Statute. 598
U. S. ___ (2022).1
                              II
  Under the FSLMRS, it is “an unfair labor practice for an
agency” “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee
in the exercise by the employee of any right under” the Stat-
ute. 5 U. S. C. §7116(a)(1). The FLRA’s jurisdiction over
this unfair labor practices dispute thus turns on whether
petitioners are an “agency” for purposes of the Statute when
they act in their capacities as supervisors of dual-status
technicians, a question bounded by a series of defined
terms. The Statute defines an “agency” as “an Executive
——————
   1 We did not grant certiorari to consider petitioners’ additional ques-

tion presented, which disputed the constitutionality of the FLRA’s au-
thority to regulate the labor practices of state militia members who are
not employed in the service of the United States. Consequently, we ad-
dress only the statutory question presented, and our holding is limited
to the unique class of federal employees hired and supervised by state
adjutants general.
6        OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL’S DEPT. v. FLRA

                     Opinion of the Court

agency,” with exceptions not relevant here. §7103(a)(3).
Then, the term “ ‘Executive agency,’ ” as used in Title 5,
“means an Executive department, a Government corpora-
tion, and an independent establishment.” §105. And each
of those terms is separately defined: an “Executive depart-
men[t]” means each of 15 Cabinet-level Departments, in-
cluding “[t]he Department of Defense,” §101; a “ ‘Govern-
ment corporation’ means a corporation owned or controlled
by the Government of the United States,” §103; and an “ ‘in-
dependent establishment’ means” “an establishment in the
executive branch,” with exceptions not relevant here,
“which is not an Executive department, military depart-
ment, Government corporation, or part thereof, or part of
an independent establishment,” §104(1). It is undisputed
that the Guard is neither a “Government corporation” nor
an “independent establishment,” leaving only “Executive
department” at issue.
   Petitioners work backwards through the links in the stat-
utory chain. They argue that they are not an Executive de-
partment because they are not listed among the 15 Cabinet-
level Departments specified in §101. Thus, they claim, they
are not an “Executive agency” under §105 and, accordingly,
do not qualify as an “agency” under the Statute. Respond-
ents counter that the components, representatives, and
agents of an agency may be required to comply with the
Statute. And they emphasize that petitioners exercise fed-
eral authority in employing dual-status technicians and
must therefore comply with applicable federal law. Re-
spondents have the better of the argument.
                              A
  The Guard, when employing dual-status technicians,
functions as an agency covered by the Statute. The Statute
defines “ ‘agency’ ” to include the Department of Defense,
one of the enumerated executive Departments in §101.
§7103(a)(3); see §§101 and 105. And, each dual-status
                  Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)             7

                      Opinion of the Court

“technician . . . is an employee of the Department of the
Army or the Department of the Air Force,” 32 U. S. C.
§709(e); see also 10 U. S. C. §10216(a)(1)(A). Those Depart-
ments, in turn, are components of the Department of De-
fense. 10 U. S. C. §§111(b)(6) and (8). And, components of
covered agencies plainly fall within the Statute’s reach. 5
U. S. C. §§7103(a)(12) (contemplating collective bargaining
between “the representative of an agency” and “the exclu-
sive representative of employees in an appropriate unit in
the agency”) and 7112(a) (contemplating the establishment
of “appropriate” bargaining units “on an agency, plant, in-
stallation, functional, or other basis”). Accordingly, when
petitioners employ and supervise dual-status technicians,
they—like components of an agency—exercise the author-
ity of the Department of Defense, a covered agency.
   The statutory authority permitting the Adjutant General
to employ dual-status technicians reinforces this point. Ad-
jutants general appoint dual-status technicians as civilian
employees in the federal civil service. See 5 U. S. C.
§2105(a)(1)(F) (providing that the term “ ‘employee,’ ” for
purposes of Title 5, ordinarily includes “an individual . . .
appointed in the [federal] civil service by . . . an adjutant
general designated by the Secretary [of the Army or of the
Air Force] under section 709[(d)] of title 32”). And, Con-
gress has required the Secretaries of the Army and Air
Force to “designate” adjutants general “to employ and ad-
minister” technicians. 32 U. S. C. §709(d). That designa-
tion is the sole basis for petitioners’ authority to employ
technicians performing work in their federal civilian roles,
confirming that petitioners act on behalf of—and exercise
the authority of—a covered federal agency when they su-
pervise dual-status technicians.
   Here, for example, a 1968 order of the Secretary of the
Army “designate[s]” and “empower[s]” each adjutant gen-
eral “to employ and administer the Army National Guard
technicians authorized for his State . . . as the case may be.”
8        OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL’S DEPT. v. FLRA

                      Opinion of the Court

General Order 85, ¶3. Accordingly, dual-status technicians
are ultimately employees of the Secretaries of the Army and
the Air Force, and petitioners are the Secretaries’ designees
for purposes of dual-status technician employment. Should
a state adjutant general wish to employ federal dual-status
technicians, he must do so pursuant to delegated federal
authority and subject to federal civil-service requirements.
See 5 U. S. C. §2105(a)(1)(F). Indeed, it would be passing
strange if dual-status technicians, who qualify as employ-
ees under the Statute, were supervised by an entity not re-
quired to safeguard the rights guaranteed employees under
the Statute. §§7102 (providing that “each employee shall
be protected in the exercise of ” his right to join or refrain
from joining a labor association) and 7103(a)(2)(A) (defining
an “ ‘employee’ ” as “an individual . . . employed in an
agency”). The case caption in this matter reflects the
Guard’s federal function with respect to hiring dual-status
technicians; before the FLRA, the case proceeded against
the “U. S. Department of Defense, Ohio National Guard,”
with the Adjutant General and the Adjutant General’s De-
partment joining the suit later as intervenors. App. 16.
  Petitioners contend that federalism concerns require us
to read the Statute to exempt them from the FLRA’s juris-
diction. But, the FLRA enforces the rights and obligations
of federal civilian employees and their agency employers.
Because adjutants general act on behalf of an agency of the
Federal Government with respect to their supervision of ci-
vilian technicians, their actions in that capacity do not im-
plicate the balance between federal and state powers. See
10 U. S. C. §10216(a); 32 U. S. C. §709(e).
                             B
  The evolution of federal agency-employee relations law
and the text of 5 U. S. C. §7135(b), which functions as the
Statute’s saving clause, lend further support to the FLRA’s
exercise of authority over the Guard. Before the FSLMRS
                  Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)              9

                      Opinion of the Court

was adopted, “labor-management relations in the federal
sector were governed by a program established” by a series
of Executive Orders, “under which federal employees had
limited rights to engage in” collective bargaining. Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. FLRA, 464 U. S. 89,
91–92 (1983). The Statute’s immediate predecessor, Exec-
utive Order No. 11491, established the precursor to the cur-
rent FLRA and listed prohibited unfair labor practices for
both federal agency management and unions. See Exec. Or-
der No. 11491, 3 CFR 861 (1966–1970 Comp.). When Con-
gress later replaced that Executive Order with the
FSLMRS, it explicitly continued many aspects of the pre-
FSLMRS regime: “Policies, regulations, and procedures es-
tablished under and decisions issued under Executive
Orde[r ] 11491 . . . shall remain in full force and effect until
revised or revoked by the President, or unless superseded
by specific provisions of [the Statute] or by regulations or
decisions issued pursuant to [the Statute].” 5 U. S. C.
§7135(b). Thus, “decisions issued under Executive Orde[r]
11491” supply critical guidance regarding the FLRA’s juris-
diction today.
   One such decision is directly on point. In the 1971 case
of Mississippi National Guard, 172d Military Airlift Group
(Thompson Field), Asst. Sec. Labor/Management Reports
(A/SLMR) No. 20 (Thompson Field), the Assistant Secre-
tary of Labor—exercising adjudicative authority under Ex-
ecutive Order No. 11491 analogous to the modern FLRA’s—
rejected arguments virtually identical to those petitioners
advance here. See id., at 2 (describing the state guard’s ar-
gument “that the provisions of Executive Order 11491 did
not apply . . . because the employees involved are under the
operational control of the Adjutant General of the State of
Mississippi, who is appointed and employed pursuant to
State law”). The Assistant Secretary reasoned “that Na-
tional Guard technicians [were] employees within the
meaning of ” the Executive Order and “employees of the
10        OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL’S DEPT. v. FLRA

                      Opinion of the Court

Federal government” under the Technicians Act. Id., at 6.
The Assistant Secretary then concluded that the adjutant
general had “been designated as an agent of the Secretaries
of the Army and the Air Force” in employing and adminis-
tering dual-status technicians and that this agency rela-
tionship created the obligation to comply with Executive
Order No. 11491. Id., at 7.
   The definitions of “employee” and “agency” that Thomp-
son Field examined under Executive Order No. 11491 were
materially identical to those that Congress ultimately
adopted in the FSLMRS. Compare 5 U. S. C. §§7103(a)(2)–
(3) (defining “ ‘employee’ ” as “an individual . . . employed in
an agency,” and defining “ ‘agency’ ” as “an Executive
agency,” which §105 in turn defines as an executive depart-
ment, a Government corporation, and an independent es-
tablishment) with Exec. Order No. 11491, §§2(a)–(b) (defin-
ing “ ‘[e]mployee’ ” primarily as “an employee of an agency,”
and defining “ ‘[a]gency’ ” as “an executive department, a
Government corporation, and an independent establish-
ment”). We would, therefore, ordinarily presume that the
FSLMRS maintained the same coverage that existed under
the prior regime. See, e.g., George v. McDonough, 596 U. S.
___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 5); Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U. S.
___, ___–___ (2019) (slip op., at 5–6). We see nothing to
weaken the force of that presumption here. On the con-
trary, §7135(b) specifically demonstrates Congress’ intent
to leave the prior regime in place except where it was spe-
cifically altered. And, because the President has not re-
voked it and neither the FSLMRS nor associated regula-
tions have repudiated it, the decision in Thompson Field
“remain[s] in full force and effect.” §7135(b).
                        *    *     *
   We conclude that petitioners are subject to the authority
of the FLRA when acting in their capacities as supervisors
of dual-status technicians. Each dual-status technician is
                  Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)                 11

                      Opinion of the Court

an employee of the Department of the Army or the Depart-
ment of the Air Force; those Departments are, in turn, com-
ponents of the Department of Defense; and the Department
of Defense is a covered agency under the Statute. Further,
a designation from the Department of the Army is the sole
basis for petitioners’ authority to employ dual-status tech-
nicians. Accordingly, petitioners employ federal dual-
status technicians pursuant to delegated federal authority
and subject to federal civil-service requirements. The Stat-
ute also explicitly incorporates prior practice, including the
decision in Thompson Field, which further reinforces our
conclusion.
   The judgment of the Sixth Circuit is affirmed.

                                                   It is so ordered.
                  Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)            1

                      ALITO, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
                          _________________

                          No. 21–1454
                          _________________

 THE OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT,
     ET AL., PETITIONERS v. FEDERAL LABOR
          RELATIONS AUTHORITY, ET AL.
 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
            APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
                         [May 18, 2023]

  JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, dis-
senting.
  Petitioners, the Ohio National Guard, the Ohio Adjutant
General, and the Ohio Adjutant General’s Department,
challenge the lawfulness of an order of the Federal Labor
Relations Authority (FLRA). That order directs petitioners
to honor their existing agreement with the union that rep-
resents the dual-status civilian technicians who are mem-
bers of the Ohio National Guard and to bargain in good
faith with the union in the future. The Court correctly ob-
serves that the FLRA’s ability to enter such an order
against petitioners “turns on whether petitioners are an
‘agency’ for purposes of the” Federal Service Labor-
Management Relations Statute. Ante, at 5; see 5 U. S. C.
§7105(g)(3). But the Court stops short of answering that
question, holding instead that petitioners “act as a federal
‘agency,’ ” ante, at 1, “exercise the authority of ” a covered
agency, ante, at 7, and even “functio[n] as an agency,” ante,
at 6. Because petitioners are not actually federal agencies,
a proposition that the Court does not dispute, the FLRA
lacks jurisdiction to enter remedial orders against them.
                              I
  These dual-status civilian technicians are indeed strange
2         OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL’S DEPT. v. FLRA

                       ALITO, J., dissenting

creatures—“rare bird[s,]” as we called them last Term.
Babcock v. Kijakazi, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 2);
ante, at 2–3. For that reason, any decision we make here
may have odd spillover effects. See, e.g., Nelson v. Geringer,
295 F. 3d 1082, 1084, 1086 (CA10 2002) (considering a Rev.
Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983 claim, which is available for
deprivations of rights under state law, against a state adju-
tant general); Singleton v. MSPB, 244 F. 3d 1331, 1336–
1337 (CA Fed. 2001) (holding that the Merit Systems Pro-
tection Board lacks authority over state adjutants general
because they are not federal employees or agencies);
Chaudoin v. Atkinson, 494 F. 2d 1323, 1329 (CA3 1974) (al-
lowing a mandamus action brought by a civilian technician
to proceed against a state adjutant general based on the
court’s authority “ ‘to compel an officer or employee of the
United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed
to the plaintiff ’ ” (quoting 28 U. S. C. §1361)). But the con-
sequences of petitioners’ theory are not nearly as odd as the
majority claims, and a plain reading of the statutory text
leads ineluctably to the conclusion that petitioners are not
“agenc[ies]” within the meaning of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS or Stat-
ute). 5 U. S. C. §7105(g)(3).
                               A
  “[W]e begin by analyzing the statutory language,” for
“[w]e must enforce plain and unambiguous statutory lan-
guage according to its terms.” Hardt v. Reliance Standard
Life Ins. Co., 560 U. S. 242, 251 (2010). The conclusion that
petitioners should prevail follows from a straightforward
reading of the statute’s text.
  First, the FSLMRS gives the FLRA remedial jurisdiction
over an entity if it is “an agency or a labor organization.”
§7105(g)(3). Second, petitioners are obviously not labor or-
ganizations, and thus the only question before us is whether
they are “agenc[ies].” Third, “agency,” a defined term in the
                  Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)              3

                      ALITO, J., dissenting

FSLMRS, means, with certain exceptions not relevant here,
“an Executive agency.” §7103(a)(3). Fourth, an “Executive
agency” is defined as “an Executive department, a Govern-
ment corporation, [or] an independent establishment.”
§105. Fifth, no petitioner is listed among the executive de-
partments in §101’s exhaustive list. See §101. Likewise,
no petitioner is either a “Government corporation” (i.e., a
“corporation owned or controlled by the Government of the
United States,” §103(1)) or an independent establishment
(i.e., “an establishment in the executive branch,” §104(1)).
Thus, no petitioner is an “agency” within the meaning of the
FSLMRS, and that means that the FLRA lacks remedial
jurisdiction over petitioners under §7105(g)(3).
   Interpretation of a statute both “begins with the statu-
tory text, and ends there as well” if the text is “ ‘unambigu-
ous.’ ” National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense, 583
U. S. 109, 127 (2018). This simple textual analysis shows
that the FSLMRS’s language unambiguously does not allow
the FLRA to direct a remedial order to any petitioner. That
should be the end of the matter.
                                B
   Because it is so clear that no petitioner is an “agency,” the
Court sidesteps the issue. Instead, it rests its decision on
three main grounds. It notes: (1) the dual status techni-
cians are federal employees, (2) petitioners “exercise the au-
thority of ” a covered agency as components or representa-
tives of that agency, ante, at 7, and (3) pre-FSLMRS
administrative practice supports the FLRA’s exercise of ju-
risdiction. None of these grounds justifies the conclusion
that any of the petitioners is an “agency” subject to the
FLRA’s remedial authority.
                              1
   The Court refers repeatedly to the uncontested proposi-
tion that the technicians are federal employees, are subject
4         OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL’S DEPT. v. FLRA

                       ALITO, J., dissenting

to federal civil-service requirements, and are employed un-
der federal law. Ante, at 3, 7–8, 11. The Court posits that
“it would be passing strange if dual-status technicians, who
qualify as employees under the Statute, were supervised by
an entity not required to safeguard the rights guaranteed
employees under the Statute.” Ante, at 8. But the question
on which this case turns is not whether the technicians are
federal employees or whether they have civil service or bar-
gaining rights. It is not even whether petitioners are obli-
gated to “safeguard” the technicians’ bargaining rights.
The question is whether any such obligations can be en-
forced by means of an order from the FLRA.
   In the context of our own remedial authority, we regu-
larly acknowledge many potential impediments to granting
a judicial remedy, even to a litigant that might be able to
prove that another party has breached its rights. For in-
stance, we might lack subject-matter jurisdiction over a
particular claim, see, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better En-
vironment, 523 U. S. 83, 94–95 (1998), or lack personal ju-
risdiction over a particular defendant, see, e.g., Daimler AG
v. Bauman, 571 U. S. 117, 121–122 (2014). The plaintiff
may lack a private right of action, see, e.g., Alexander v.
Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 293 (2001), or the defendant may
have a valid immunity defense, see, e.g., Wilson v. Layne,
526 U. S. 603, 605–606 (1999). The fact that litigants with
meritorious claims may not be able to obtain a particular
remedy from a particular source is not “strange,” but per-
fectly ordinary.
   It is no more strange to say in this case that, regardless
of whatever rights and duties the parties may have, the par-
ticular remedy of an FLRA order is unavailable. “Adminis-
trative agencies are creatures of statute,” National Federa-
tion of Independent Business v. OSHA, 595 U. S. ___, ___
(2022) (per curiam) (slip op., at 5), and accordingly “have
only those powers given to them by Congress,” West Vir-
ginia v. EPA, 597 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 19). If
                      Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)                     5

                          ALITO, J., dissenting

Congress wants the FLRA to have authority to enter an or-
der against any of the petitioners, it must give the FLRA
that authority. See American Power & Light Co. v. SEC,
329 U. S. 90, 112–113 (1946) (contemplating that an
agency’s remedy may be set aside where it “is unwarranted
in law”).*
                              2
   Second, the Court reasons that petitioners, in supervising
the technicians, “exercise the authority of the Department
of Defense, a covered agency.” Ante, at 7. The Court ap-
provingly relates respondents’ argument that, while peti-
tioners may not be agencies, “the components, representa-
tives, and agents of an agency may be required to comply
with the Statute.” Ante, at 6. The Court does not specify
which of these three categories it thinks petitioners fall
into. It says only that petitioners are “like components of
an agency.” Ante, at 7 (emphasis added). And it finds that
they are “like” components of an agency because they su-
pervise the technicians pursuant to a “designat[ion]” from
the heads of the Departments of the Army and the Air
Force, which are themselves components of the Department
of Defense. Ante, at 7–8. Since the Department of Defense
is an agency, the Court reasons that the same must be true
of petitioners.
   The problem with this reasoning is that a “designat[ion]”
to exercise the authority of an “agency” does not turn the
designee into an agency. Just because A is designated to
exercise the authority of B, it does not follow that A is B.
Here is an example. If an administrative hearing officer in
——————
   *Although an order from the FLRA is not available, several mecha-
nisms exist to remedy breaches of petitioners’ obligations. As petitioners
concede, the National Guard Bureau may exert its authority via control
of funding and recognition of state guards. See Brief for Petitioners 33–
34. And the Federal Government could bring a suit against petitioners
in an Article III court to enforce the technicians’ bargaining rights. See,
e.g., Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 71, n. 14 (1996).
6        OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL’S DEPT. v. FLRA

                      ALITO, J., dissenting

the Department of the Interior is disqualified from hearing
a case, that officer must report that information “to the Sec-
retary of the Interior or such officer as he may designate.”
43 U. S. C. §101 (emphasis added). The designated officer
does not become the Secretary by virtue of having been des-
ignated to carry out a duty or exercise authority that would
otherwise rest with the Secretary.
   The same is true here. The designation of petitioners by
the Departments of the Army and Air Force to perform
some of those departments’ duties and to exercise some of
their authority does not turn petitioners into agencies or
necessarily have any effect beyond assigning them those
duties and responsibilities. 32 U. S. C. §709(d).
   The Court’s related and highly functionalist argument
that petitioners must be subject to the FLRA because they
“exercise the authority of ” an agency in supervising the
technicians similarly fails. Ante, at 7. One entity may aug-
ment the power of another by delegating to it certain au-
thority. See, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
343 U. S. 579, 635–638 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring).
That delegation of authority, however, does not turn the lat-
ter entity into the former one. That petitioners exercise au-
thority that federal agencies would otherwise hold does not
make them agencies any more than the President is Con-
gress when he exercises authority pursuant to congres-
sional authorization. See ibid.
   To be sure, the official who makes the designation cannot
delegate authority that he or she does not have. If the
FSLMRS constrains the Departments of the Army and Air
Force in their relationship with the technicians, it stands to
reason that those Departments cannot delegate to adju-
tants general the power to supervise the technicians free
from such constraints. As I have explained, though, this
case turns not on whether petitioners have obligations to
bargain with the technicians, but on whether those obliga-
tions may be enforced against petitioners as if they are
                  Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)              7

                       ALITO, J., dissenting

“agenc[ies].” 5 U. S. C. §7105(g)(3). And on that score, say-
ing the Departments’ designation transforms petitioners
into agencies, with all the legal ramifications of that label,
is no more sensible than saying the officer the Secretary of
the Interior designates to receive disqualification notices
becomes, like the Secretary of the Interior, a principal of-
ficer of the United States subject to Senate confirmation.
U. S. Const., Art. II, §2.
                                3
   Finally, the Court’s reliance on the Statute’s “saving
clause,” §7135(b), and on the Assistant Secretary of Labor’s
decision in Thompson Field, is both misplaced and unper-
suasive on its own terms. See Mississippi National Guard,
172d Military Airlift Group (Thompson Field), Asst. Sec.
Labor/Management Reports (A/SLMR) No. 20 (Thompson
Field).
   Section 7135(b) provides that “[p]olicies, regulations, and
procedures established under and decisions issued under
Executive Orde[r] 11491 . . . shall remain in full force and
effect until revised or revoked by the President, or unless
superseded by specific provisions of [the Statute] or by reg-
ulations or decisions issued pursuant to [the Statute].” This
language merely directs that, absent specific abrogation by
the FSLMRS or reconsideration by the appropriate execu-
tive officer, prior administrative policies, regulations, and
procedures remain just as binding on the Executive Branch
as they were before the adoption of the FSLMRS. The
Court appears to agree, describing the saving clause as hav-
ing “continued” pre-FSLMRS administrative practice.
Ante, at 9.
   If that is all that the saving clause did, however, I fail to
see why it is relevant here. Congress’s directive to “con-
tinu[e]” existing administrative practices does not evince
approval of any particular practice or prevent a court from
saying that a particular practice has been unlawful all
8         OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL’S DEPT. v. FLRA

                       ALITO, J., dissenting

along. The saving clause “expressly intended to allow both
the [FLRA] and the courts to disregard . . . earlier . . . inter-
pretation[s] of the Executive Order” and “did not intend for
the [FLRA] or the courts to pay any deference to [such ear-
lier] interpretations.” INS v. FLRA, 855 F. 2d 1454, 1461
(CA9 1988); see also Department of Air Force v. FLRA, 877
F. 2d 1036, 1041 (CADC 1989) (§7135 “was merely intended
to prevent the slate from being wiped clean until the
[FLRA] and the courts could interpret the [FSLMRS] in a
manner consistent with Congress’s intent” (internal quota-
tion marks omitted)). Prior agency practice under the “ma-
terially identical” language of Executive Order No. 11491 is
thus no obstacle to adopting the straightforward reading of
“agency” the FSLMRS’s text requires. Ante, at 10.
   Although the majority’s historical-practice argument is
flawed at the foundation because it misreads §7135(b), the
single administrative decision it cites in support of its argu-
ment does not shed much light on the matter at hand any-
way. In Thompson Field, the Adjutant General of the State
of Mississippi raised a number of objections to federal over-
sight of the technicians, including that the technicians are
not federal employees; that Executive Order No. 11491 is
categorically “not applicable to the State of Mississippi”;
and that bargaining with a technicians’ union would violate
Mississippi law. Thompson Field, at 3–5.
   The Mississippi Adjutant General did not make the argu-
ment that his Department is not an “agency” within the
meaning of the remedial provision of Executive Order
No. 11491.
   Moreover, in deciding Thompson Field, the Assistant Sec-
retary of Labor relied principally on the fact that dual-
status civilian technicians are federal employees and that
the protections of Executive Order No. 11491 apply to them.
Id., at 6–7. That analysis does not answer the key question
whether the Mississippi Adjutant General is an “agency”
subject to remedial jurisdiction. And while the Court
                  Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)            9

                      ALITO, J., dissenting

quotes the Assistant Secretary’s remark that the Adjutant
General is “ ‘an agent of the Secretaries of the Army and the
Air Force,’ ” ante, at 10, that observation was made in the
course of rejecting the Adjutant General’s argument that
Mississippi law did not permit him to bargain with a labor
organization. Thompson Field, at 7. The Assistant Secre-
tary was not addressing the question whether being an
“agent” of those Secretaries rendered the Adjutant General
sufficiently “like an agency” to be subject to federal reme-
dial jurisdiction.
  A single administrative decision, like a single or even “a
smattering of lower court opinions,” is ordinarily not espe-
cially probative of statutory meaning. BP p.l.c. v. Mayor
and City Council of Baltimore, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip
op., at 11); see also George v. McDonough, 596 U. S. ___, ___
(2022) (slip op., at 5) (explaining that a “robust regulatory
backdrop” may “fil[l] in the details” of a statutory scheme
(emphasis added)). The saving clause does not render this
case an exception. Consequently, a single administrative
decision by an Assistant Secretary that does not even ad-
dress the particular argument petitioners raise in this case
offers no reason to resist the conclusion that the Ohio Adju-
tant General’s Department is plainly not a federal agency.
                             II
  Because no petitioner is an “agency” within the meaning
of §7105(g)(3), I would reverse the judgment of the Sixth
Circuit and hold that petitioners fall outside the remedial
jurisdiction of the FLRA. I respectfully dissent from the
Court’s contrary conclusion.