Oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

On Jan. 11, the Supreme Court hears what may well be the most important case of the term. In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 10 teachers have challenged a state requirement that they support political causes with which they disagree and that hurt their students.

At issue is a kind of law that exists in 25 states which forces public-sector workers either to join a union or pay an amount that covers the cost of the union’s collective bargaining. For California teachers, that means annual dues of about $1,000 or “agency fees” of about two-thirds that amount.

— Ilya Shapiro and Jason Bedrick, Orange County Register. More: Shapiro and Jayme Weber, The Federalist; Richard Epstein, Robert Alt first, second (empirical evidence that unions can do well even when nonmembers not obliged to pay agency fees), third (stare decisis) posts, George Will. Earlier on Friedrichs and its predecessor cases Harris v. Quinn and Knox v. SEIU. A contrary view: New York Times editorial.

Filed under: First Amendment, labor unions, schools, Supreme Court

Rebecca Friedrichs and her First Amendment rights, cont’d

My colleague Ilya Shapiro thought things went well for the plaintiffs’ side in yesterday’s oral argument in the much-watched case over the First Amendment and teachers’ union dues, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. Others generally agree. Commentary before the argument from Jason Bedrick and Trevor Burrus, and afterward from Lyle Denniston (and more SCOTUSBlog).

Filed under: labor unions, Supreme Court

Supreme Court could revisit forced advocacy dues for public workers

A 1977 Supreme Court decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, upheld the constitutionality of forcing public employees to fund (through union dues) advocacy they might not like. More recently the Court has questioned the reasoning of Abood in Knox v. SEIU (2012) and Harris v. Quinn (2014), although the trend stalled in last year’s 4-4 split in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. Now the Court could revisit the issue by agreeing to review a Seventh Circuit case from Illinois, Janus v. AFSCME [Ilya Shapiro and Frank Garrison, Cato]

Filed under: First Amendment, labor unions, public employment, Supreme Court

The biggest cases, without Scalia

This year’s eight-member court may reach different outcomes than had formerly been expected in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, the public employee union dues case; the Obamacare religious exemption cases including Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell; and Fisher v. Texas, the affirmative action case, among others. Also diminished: the chance that the Court will overturn its doctrine of “Auer deference” to agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations, a doctrine laid out by Scalia himself which he later came to reconsider [Adam Gustafson, Washington Examiner] Plus the trio of class action cases, the challenge to the EPA’s coal-throttling Clean Power Plan, and much more [Daniel Fisher, Forbes] (& welcome Wall Street Journal Law Blog readers)

Filed under: administrative law, Supreme Court

Public employment roundup

NYPD retiree “shared his happiness at scoring the disability pension, as well as his achievements running marathons” [New York Daily News]
Scott Greenfield on public sector unionism and Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association [Simple Justice, earlier] Pending Illinois case raises issues parallel to Friedrichs [Cato podcast with lead plaintiff Mark Janus and attorney Jacob Huebert]
San Diego voters tried to address public employee pension crisis, now state panel says doing things by ballot initiative violates obligation to bargain with unions [Scott Shackford, Reason]
“Staten Island Ferry deckhand who has already pocketed $600K in job related injuries sues city for $45M” [New York Daily News]
Detroit “firefighters were paid for 32-hour days….Numerous top-level fire officials signed off on the overtime.” [Motor City Muckraker]
“Without public worker unions, who would lobby against making it a crime to strike a pedestrian with right of way?” [Josh Barro on NYC controversy]
“Not Even a Criminal Referral to the Dept. of Justice Can Get You Fired From the VA” [Amanda Winkler, Reason]

Filed under: Detroit, NYC, public employment, San Diego, transit

Supreme Court roundup

The Court begins its new term each year on the first Monday in October:

Court agrees to tackle RICO extraterritoriality [Alison Frankel/Reuters and earlier background, Washington Legal Foundation; RJR Nabisco v. European Community]
New term shaping up as even bigger for class action law than expected [Jess Bravin, W$J, Alison Frankel in June] In addition to Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo (“trial by formula“) and Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins [uninjured plaintiff standing: Kevin LaCroix, more], cases include DirecTV v. Imburgia [can California court refuse to enforce arbitration clause waiving class actions?; Ronald Mann, WLF]; Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez [is class action mooted when defendant proffers full recoverable amount to named plaintiff? Ronald Mann]; and now, just granted, MHN Government Services, Inc. v. Zaborowski (“Whether California’s arbitration-only severability rule is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act”). DirecTV is slated for oral argument Tues., Oct. 6, and Campbell-Ewald Wed., Oct. 14;
Rating John Roberts as Chief Justice: a lot to like if you get past the overdone deference to political branches [Roger Pilon, Cato; a contrary view, Evan Bernick] “The Fatal Conceit of Chief Justice Roberts’s ‘Long Game'” [Josh Blackman]
Why the Little Sisters of the Poor have a better religious liberty case than Kim Davis [Noah Feldman, Cato amicus and Josh Blackman podcast]
Did 2012 Congressional enactment on frozen Iran assets and terrorism claimants unconstitutionally direct courts how to decide pending litigation? Court grants cert [Bank Markazi v. Peterson; Lyle Denniston]
Symposium on teacher-dues First Amendment case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association with Deborah LaFetra, David Rifkin/Andrew Grossman, and others [SCOTUSblog] “If unions lose agency fees, what next?” [Joanne Jacobs]
A regulatory taking? PLF seeks certiorari on California Supreme Court decision upholding San Jose “inclusionary zoning” rules [Pacific Legal Foundation, more; Scott Beyer]
Plus: “Supreme Court Justices Get More Liberal As They Get Older” [Oliver Roeder/Five Thirty-Eight, with charts]

Filed under: class actions, John Roberts, religious liberty, Supreme Court

Workers shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to not fund union politics

So argues a Cato Institute amicus brief in the important pending case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which builds on the Court’s recent First Amendment precedents in Knox v. SEIU (2012) and Harris v. Quinn (2014) [Andrew Grossman and Ilya Shapiro]

Filed under: First Amendment, labor unions, Supreme Court

Last year’s (and next’s) Supreme Court term

Caleb Brown interviews me and Trevor Burrus about some of the term’s lower-profile Supreme Court cases, including Abercrombie & Fitch (religious accommodation), disparate impact housing discrimination, Yates (whether the Sarbanes-Oxley financial accounting law forbids destroying fish), Horne (raisin takings), three-strikes sentencing and (Trevor) the Texas confederate flag license plate case. We also preview next term’s important Friedrich v. California Teachers Association case on public sector union dues collection (more on which, Michael Rosman).

Related: ten cases the Court should have taken last term but didn’t [Mark Chenoweth, WLF]

Filed under: on TV and radio, Supreme Court

Schools and childhood roundup

“Someone could have put their hand in the window and unlocked the door and taken the kids” [Lenore Skenazy/Free Range Kids; related stories here and here; similar, Illinois Policy]
Police warn that plan in Scotland to provide state guardian for every child could backfire in abuse investigations [Telegraph, more on “named person” scheme]
Also from Scotland: Law Society says proposed ban on liquor promotion is so broad it might snag parent wearing rugby-sponsor jacket at school pickup [Express]
Judge rejects Mississippi school finance suit [Andrew Ujifusa, State Education Watch, background]
Widespread criticism of Michigan judge for sending kids to juvenile detention for not wanting to have lunch with their father [Radley Balko]
“Two Parents Weren’t Sure How Their Little Girl Fractured Her Leg, So CPS Took the Kids” [Lenore Skenazy, more, yet more on “medical kidnapping”]
Caleb Brown and Andrew Grossman discuss educator-dues case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association [Cato Daily Podcast, earlier on case, its SCOTUSBlog page]

Filed under: advertising, child custody, child protection, Child Protective Services, Mississippi, schools, Scotland

Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup

Supreme Court grants certiorari (as Cato had urged) in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, on First Amendment rights of individual public employees against unions, potentially major sequel to Harris v. Quinn (our coverage) and Knox v. SEIU (our coverage). More: Jason Bedrick, Cato;
More First Amendment: On same day, high court says Texas can turn down Confederate-flag license plates but that town of Gilbert, Ariz. impermissibly took content into account in regulating roadside signs [Lyle Denniston; Eugene Volokh on Gilbert and earlier, and on license plates] Ilya Shapiro has a wrap-up of other end-of-term cases;
Paging judicial-independence buffs: study finds Obama stands out for aggressive comments on pending SCOTUS cases [W$J via Jonathan Adler]
Abercrombie v. EEOC followup (earlier): If Thomas’s dissent has the courage of its convictions, maybe it’s because he was longest-serving chairman in EEOC history [Tamara Tabo] “SCOTUS requires employers to stereotype in ruling for EEOC in hijab-accommodation case” [Jon Hyman] Yes, employers can still have dress codes, but read on for the caveat [Daniel Schwartz]
“Illinois Uses Racial Preferences for No Good Reason,” Seventh Circuit take note [Ilya Shapiro and Julio Colomba, Cato]
Feds can refuse to register a “disparaging” trademark. Consistent with the First Amendment? [Shapiro, Cato]
More from Ilya Somin on anniversary of eminent domain Kelo v. New London decision [one, two, more]

Filed under: constitutional law, EEOC, eminent domain, First Amendment, labor unions, Supreme Court, trademarks