As Jefferson famously put it, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhor[s] is sinful and tyrannical.” We have therefore recognized that a “ ‘significant impingement on First Amendment rights’” occurs when public employees are required to provide financial support for a union that “takes many positions during collective bargaining that have powerful political and civic consequences.”Get our newsletter in your inbox twice a week.Alito’s opinion was even more anti-union than many observers expected. For that reason, almost all economic and regulatory policy affects or touches speech. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018) — abbreviated Janus v.AFSCME — was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on US labor law, concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members.
Should teachers be given tenure protection and, if so, under what conditions?
Perhaps because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech.
Sixth Circuit Upholds Kentucky Law Requiring Doctors Performing Abortions to First Conduct an Ultrasound and Describe the Image.Importantly, though, five Justices — Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Scalia, concurring, and Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, dissenting — said that these defendants were protected by good faith immunity. Should teacher pay be based on seniority, the better to retain experienced teachers?
To be precise, 22 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico—plus another twoStates for police and firefighter unions. No form of employee consent is required.Janus v. AFSCME is a very, very big deal.So Alito avoids it by arguing that everything that public sector unions do in collective bargaining is political, and has major political ramifications. Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.
[T]he existence of a statute thought valid ought to allow a defendant to argue that he acted in subjective good faith and is entitled to exoneration no matter what the objective test is.Baude and Volokh briefly suggest:* Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law.
As of 2013, Illinois had nearly $160 billion in unfunded pension and retiree healthcare liabilities.
On what grounds and pursuant to what procedures should teachers be subject to discipline or dismissal? But it also serves a PR purpose, to explain that Alito does not believe he is gutting the public employee movement, but instead is denying it a privilege that is not necessary for its continued thriving.Alito, in his opinion, has to rebut the idea that union speech in the context of collective bargaining is essentially apolitical, and about wages and benefits for workers. If it’s speech made as a matter of course during normal business hours, then the claim that compelling that speech violates the First Amendment is dubious. It was meant not to undermine but to protect democratic governance—including over the role of public-sector unions.He further cites the example of teacher union influence on education policy.
The majority overthrows a decision entrenched in this Nation’s law— and in its economic life—for over 40 years.
is significant and is going to have major effects. by Jacob Huebert October 11, 2018 On June 27, the Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. AFSCME that the First Amendment protects government employees from being forced to pay fees to a union. That’s another blow that unions weren’t really expecting from this ruling.Over 20 States have by now enacted statutes authorizing fair-share provisions. These problems and others led Moody’s and S&P to downgrade Illinois’ credit rating to“one step above junk”—the “lowest ranking on record for a U.S. state.”This section serves an argumentative purpose in the context of the ruling.
We are told that a “quarter of the budget is now devoted to paying down” those liabilities.
Suppose, for example, that the State of Illinois required all residents to sign a document expressing support for a particular set of positions on controversial public issues—say, the platform of one of the major political parties. Or should schools adopt merit-pay systems to encourage teachers to get the best results out of their students? The Court overruled Abood v.Detroit Board of Education, 2× 2.
… Speech is everywhere—a part of every human activity (employment, health care, securities trading, you name it).
The majority responds, in a footnote no less, that this is of no proper concern to the Court.Compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers raises similar First Amendment concerns.