Since 1977, unions that have been designated as the exclusive bargaining representatives for both private and public sector employees have been allowed to require all employees, union and non-union members, to pay union dues. These union dues, paid by both union and non-union members, cover the designated union’s “agency” costs, which in return, obligates the union to represent and bargain for benefits and working conditions for all workers in that unit, including non-union members. The Supreme Court has recognized that this involves “close questions under the First Amendment,” and the Court has made it clear that forcing non-union members to pay dues that would cover the union’s political or ideological activity violates the First Amendment.

Over the past four decades, this ruling of mandatory union dues found in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education has been constantly criticized and challenged in the Court. Recently, in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association the Supreme Court was posed with the question by a group of California teachers on whether requiring non-union members in the public-sector to affirmatively opt out of paying nonchargeable portions of the agency fees each year violates their First Amendment rights. Read on to learn the effects of the Supreme Court issuing a decision with only eight justices, and to take a look at the court’s decision

Changes in Public Sector Labor

In 1977, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, that public workers have the right to join together and form a union that exclusively represents them in collective bargaining negotiations. The court also ruled that union members can vote to collect a “fair share” fee from all workers who receive union benefits “germane” to collective bargaining, which are “service charges used to finance expenditures by the union for collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance adjustment purposes.” This means that when workers vote to form a union, they can also decide that “all workers, regardless if they are union members, should share the cost of union representation, since all workers benefit from the bargaining agreements” according to AFSCME. However, the Court did determine that the First Amendment requires unions to provide workers with a means of opting out from dues that are not “germane” to collective bargaining. Meaning, workers must have a means to opt out of paying for dues related to political activities, including, activity related to political views, on behalf of political candidates, or toward the advancement of other ideological causes. According to SCOTUS:

The Constitution requires that a union’s expenditures for ideological causes not germane to to its duties as a collective bargaining representative be financed from charges, dues or assessments paid by employees who do not object to its advancing such causes and who are not coerced into doing so against their will by the threat of loss of governmental employment.

Following this decision, in 2012, in Knox v. SEIU, the Supreme Court determined that the longstanding precedent that the First Amendment demands that non-union members covered by union contracts be given the chance to “opt out” of special fees, was insufficient.  In a 7-2 decision, the majority ruled that it’s unconstitutional to allow a “public-sector union to impose a special assessment without the affirmative consent of a member upon whom it is imposed.”

The next major case heard in the Supreme Court in 2014, Harris v. Quinn, the Court held that “personal assistants” that provide homecare services cannot be compelled to pay dues to a union they do not wish to join, since they are hired and fired by individual patients and work in private homes. Since these home health care workers are not truly state employees, yet they are “partial-public employees,” Abood should not apply, and thus these partial-public employees are not required to pay partial dues known as “agency fees.” This Court’s decision led some unions to believe that the Court may be ready to overturn Abood and free all public-sector workers from compulsory dues. To gain a perspective of the effects of this ruling, the year following this decision, SEIU Healthcare Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Kansas, which originally claimed about 60 percent of the caregivers in the state subsidy programs covered by this case, later reported that it only represents 30 percent of the state subsidy caregivers (about 13,000 in-home Illinois caregivers left SEIU) and cost the SEIU an estimated $5 million in member dues.

Recent Challenge to Union Dues 

#SCOTUS signals support for plaintiffs in Friedrichs v. CTA case, via @politico: https://t.co/ptGIJ5S9cB pic.twitter.com/6Znbe1mcWR

— 50CAN (@FiftyCAN) January 12, 2016

The most recent case heard in the Supreme Court, Friedrichs v. the California Teachers Association et al., challenged Abood and compulsory agency fees.

This case was brought by 10 California teachers, including Rebecca Friedrich who was the lead plaintiff, and a teachers group, Christian Educators Association International in California. According to California law, public employees who refuse to join unions must pay a “fair share service fee” typically equivalent to the dues members pay. The fees are meant to pay for some of the costs of collective bargaining.

Oral Arguments with Scalia; Court’s Ruling Without Scalia

In January 2016, the oral arguments were delivered for this case.

The plaintiffs tried to convince the Court to overturn Abood by arguing that agency fees violate their First Amendment rights, because bargaining with the state is no different from lobbying, as it is “inherently political.” They further argued that California Teachers Association does not “represent their interests on bargaining issues covered by fair-share fees.” Thus, California should not force them to financially support a union they disagree with. The Center for Individual Rights, who represented these plaintiffs stated that:

Typically, California teacher union dues cost upwards of a $1,000 per year. Although California law allows teachers to opt-out of the thirty percent or so of their dues devoted to overt political lobbying, they may not opt out of the sixty to seventy percent of their dues the union determines is devoted to collective bargaining. Requiring teachers to pay these “agency fees” assumes that collective bargaining is non-political.  But bargaining with local governments is inherently political. Whether the union is negotiating for specific class sizes or pressing a local government to spend tax dollars on teacher pensions rather than on building parks, the union’s negotiating positions embody political choices that are often controversial.

On the other hand, the defendants in this case, California Teachers Association, argue that, according to Huffington Post, that:

Since unions must represent members and non-members, it’s appropriate to require all who benefit from negotiations to share the costs. The loss of money from “free-riders” – those who benefit without paying – would threaten a union’s ability to effectively represent employees.

Furthermore, the defendants argued that they represent the views of the majority, and anyone who disagrees can speak up. They also say the plaintiffs:

Are simply wrong in declaring that it ‘does not make a First Amendment difference’ whether speech is part of lobbying the Legislature to enact a law or of negotiating a contract with the public employer. […] unlike lobbying, collective bargaining is a process of making binding collective agreements with obligations on both sides.

During and after the oral arguments, the court’s conservative majority appeared “ready to say that forcing public workers to support unions they had declined to join violates the First Amendment.” Justice Antonin Scalia was said to be the swing vote for this case. He had a history of endorsing union’s positions, but during the oral arguments for Friedrichs, Scalia “tore into core arguments made by the union and government attorneys.” Despite Scalia’s passing in February, the Court moved forward and handed down their decision at the end of March, with a 4 to 4 tie. A split decision at the Supreme Court level means that the lower court’s ruling will be upheld and the laws will be left in place until a future case challenges this issue. Thus, in the meantime, Abood will not be overruled and the 25 states and D.C. that require compulsory union dues can lawfully continue to require non-members to pay agency fees to support union’s collective bargaining agreements.

Conclusion: What’s Next?

The Center for Individual Rights announced that it will request a rehearing. According to the Supreme Court rules, a rehearing request must be filed within twenty-five days following the March 29th ruling. According to SCOTUSBlog: “It would require the votes of five Justices to order such a reconsideration, and one of the five must have been one who had joined in the decision.”

Though this is a grand victory for unions, the future of unions is still up in the air and largely depends on who replaces Scalia. Until then, the tension will continue between union supporters and anti-union advocates.

Resources

Primary

SCOTUS: Abood v. Detroit Board of Education

SCOTUS Blog: Opinion Analysis: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

Brief of Respondents

Additional

SCOTUS Blog: Argument Preview: Is Abood in Trouble? 
The Atlantic: What will become of Public-Sector Union’s Now?

The Center for Individual Rights: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

Huffington Post: This Supreme Court Case Could Significantly Weaken Teacher Unions

On Labor: Cases in the Pipeline: Challenges to Union Security Clauses

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit select information to the Huffington Post.

Ashlyn Marquez

Ashlyn Marquez received her law degree from the American University, Washington College of Law and her Bachelor’s degree from The New School. She works in immigration law and has a passion for worker’s rights, tacos, and avocados. Contact Ashlyn at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Friedrichs v. CTA: A Big SCOTUS Win for Unions, But Not Over Yet appeared first on Law Street.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead at 79 today at Cibolo Creek Ranch, in Texas. A conservative fixture on the court since he was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia’s death leaves a hole in the bench–filling it already promises to be contentious in today’s hostile political environment.

According to sources, Scalia was in Texas at a resort this weekend. He complained that he did not feel well last night, went to bed, and didn’t show up for breakfast this morning, so his hunting party left without him. He was later found to have passed away in his sleep, from natural causes.

His colleagues, as well as other top political voices, mourned his passing. Chief Justice John Roberts stated:

He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and treasured by his colleagues. His passing is a great loss to the Court and the country he so loyally served. We extend our deepest condolences to his wife Maureen and his family.

Additionally, 2016 candidates weighed in on Scalia’s legacy:

My thoughts and prayers are with Justice Scalia’s family and his colleagues on the court who mourn his passing. pic.twitter.com/Y51xUMMEId

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 13, 2016

The totally unexpected loss of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a massive setback for the Conservative movement and our COUNTRY! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 13, 2016

Statement on the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: pic.twitter.com/xazj9dDd5c

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 14, 2016

Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement. — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) February 13, 2016

Jeanette & I mourn the loss of Justice Scalia, and our thoughts & prayers are with his wife Maureen & his family. pic.twitter.com/e03KRZRM6q

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 13, 2016

President Barack Obama stated:

Obviously, today is a time to remember Justice Scalia’s legacy. I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. These are responsibilities I take seriously, as should everyone.

However, the arguably most controversial statement came from Senator Mitch McConnell, who stated: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

Given President Obama’s sitting duck status, the fight to replace Scalia will probably be incredibly controversial, especially given McConnell’s fighting words. But for now, the United States mourns a leading legal mind.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Found Dead appeared first on Law Street.

Today the Supreme Court handed down an historic ruling on marriage, striking down state laws that ban same-sex marriage. Always one to out-do himself, Justice Scalia delivered a dissenting opinion of immense rhetorical heft, perhaps even better than his Obamacare dissent. Here are the highlights:

10. “The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”

Hey, Ginsburg was drunk at ONE State of the Union, don’t hold it against her.

9. “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

No, I’m pretty sure this guy still rules everything that the light touches.

8. “Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before the fall.”

Hey, as long as you fall with style, it’s all good.

7. “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.”

Good thing Scalia’s got his glasses on.

6. “But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”

Putsch. noun \ˈpu̇ch\ :  a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government.

Is Ginsburg the Mockingjay?

5. “Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages…”

Yikes. I hope they have some ice at the Supreme Court

4. Referring to the makeup of the Supreme Court: “Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count).”

You’re not even real California, just get over it!

3. “…but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that the happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.”

Scalia’s wife may have some words for him when he gets home today.

2. “The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me.”

I don’t think he found any.

1. “Ask the nearest hippie?”

Upon inquiry, the hippie responded, “Who’s Antonin Scalia?”

Bonus:  (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?)

Takeway of the day: Scalia is very confused. And those brackets certainly aren’t helping.

To read more Scalia fun, make sure to check out the Top 10 Most Creative Quotes from Antonin Scalia’s Obamacare Dissent.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Top 10 Most Creative Quotes From Antonin Scalia’s Marriage Equality Dissent appeared first on Law Street.

Should all online threats lead to time in prison? According to the Supreme Court, simply reporting a threat posted by someone on the internet is no longer enough to put them in jail, as the Supreme Court just overturned the 2011 conviction of Anthony Elonis. A Pennsylvania native, Elonis was sentenced to jail after posting multiple threats toward his wife, co-workers, and elementary schools in the form of lyrics on Facebook. He claimed to use these posts as therapeutic methods to cope with his depression. However, due to their violent nature, he was convicted for violating a federal threat statute. Elonis appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, arguing that the government should have been required to prove he truly had an intent to act on these threats before sentencing him to a 44 month term in jail. That argument convinced the Supreme Court–but what does it mean for online communication moving forward?

With this ruling, the Supreme Court says courts must consider the defendant’s state of mind and whether he intended to actually do wrong. This simply means that there must be some proof that the defendant intended to follow through on what he was posting. The court gave a 7-2 opinion but did not set a clear standard for what constitutes this intent to act out these threats. There are questions of whether this will potentially create uncertainties during future trials. In fact, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. believe that this opinion is more confusing than enlightening. Thomas wrote, “This failure to decide throws everyone from appellate judges to everyday Facebook users into a state of uncertainty.”

This is a very tricky case with two sides to it. Something that is posted online may very well be taken out of context, but there is also a good chance that someone who has intent to cause harm to others will not be seen as guilty in a courtroom due to the lack of proof. Michele M. Garcia, director of the Stalker Resource Center, stated,

This decision fails to recognize that victims of stalking experience fear regardless of the offender’s intent. If what constitutes a threat is not clearly defined, our concern is that this ruling provides enormous space for stalkers and abusers to act.

Mai Fernandez, executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime, described the internet as “the crime scene of the 21st century. Kim Gandy, president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, stated,

Threats play a central role in domestic abuse and is a core tactic that many abusers employ, regardless of whether the abuser intended to threaten or only intended to vent or to make a joke.

I can’t help but wonder if this decision will help people who do plan to harm others avoid prison?  There is a big concern that this will let internet abusers get around the law by writing hateful posts that “technically” are not threats but are still frightening to others. This decision may make it much more difficult to prosecute those whose posts are a precursor to violence that is going to take place. Only time will tell if this decision by the Supreme Court was beneficial or harmful for those dealing with internet threats.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anthony Elonis’s Conviction Overturned: Are Online Threats Now Fair Game? appeared first on Law Street.

This is going to hurt me a lot more than it is going to hurt you: Justice Antonin Scalia might have a point.

I know, I know. His “orthodoxy” and “originalism” are nothing but facades that make a joke out of Constitutional interpretation. His recalcitrance has a deteriorating effect on America. His arrogance knows no limits. But one of his thoughts contains a basic interpretation of the Constitution that is extremely important. A recent Denver Post article quotes Scalia saying, “’There are those who would have us believe that the separation of church and state must mean that God must be driven out of the public forum…That is simply not what our Constitution has ever meant.’”

I’ve already written about why it’s okay — and good — to include religion in the public discourse. So I will simply sum up my argument here: religion is still an integral part of American life, religion is still an integral American social institution, and religion still informs the morals of American public officials. Instead of dismissing that out of fear of a too-close relationship between church and state, let’s have it out in the open for our discussions. Now this one is hard for me to swallow, but it behooves me to agree with a basic component of Scalia’s belief. The separation of church and state, vital as it is, does not necessitate the eradication of religiosity from American life, public or private.

Despite feeling empty inside for supporting something that Justice Scalia said, I’ll press on. The topic is of utmost importance right now as more Americans are unhappy about perceived lack of religiosity, according to Pew Research. As 72 percent of Americans believe that religion has lost influence in the country, “a growing share of the American public wants religion to play a role in U.S. politics,” Pew’s Religion & Public Life Project claims. Scalia and I are on to something: religious presence in American public life is not only Constitutionally acceptable, but desired by an increasing number of people in the country.

What does this mean for political alignments in America? On one hand Pew notes that more “of the general public sees the Republican Party as friendly toward religion (47%) than sees the Democratic Party that way (29%).” On the other hand, there are “some signs of discontent within the GOP among its supporters, including evangelicals.” While Christians still dominate the American religious atmosphere, their political spread is complicated. Black Protestants overwhelmingly support the Democratic party as opposed to their White Republican counterparts. Meanwhile, the Catholic demographic is split between Republican Whites and Democratic Hispanics.

These spreads indicate how differentiated all religious Americans — even Christian Americans — are politically. Therefore, the growing number of Americans looking to see more religiosity in the U.S. political sphere is comprised of a variety of political interests. Neither liberals nor conservatives, then, should be too optimistic or pessimistic because of these demographics. Only those who oppose Scalia’s conception of church and state should be concerned. While religion may be less prevalent in public life right now, those who oppose religion in public life also have waning clout.

Scalia’s statement is consistent with the growing public sentiment, but how should the Supreme Court interpret this opinion? Of course, according to Scalia, the Supreme Court should completely ignore the current public dynamic and focus only on the “original” meaning of the Constitution. And in Scalia’s eyes, the “original” meaning of the First Amendment “explicitly favors religion” over non-religion, as he mentions in a recent Court opinion. Will the Supreme Court, and Scalia, look to the recent sentiments of the public to validate a preference of the religious over the non-religious? Or will some members of the Court defend agnostic and atheistic rights when applicable? With the Court slated to hear a few cases on religion in the near future, these questions should be mainstream.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Justice Scalia Gets It Right: There is a Political Demand for Religion appeared first on Law Street.