The U.S. Supreme Court and the “Fate of the Union”

by Snell & Wilmer
Contact

Snell & Wilmer

Recently the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a matter that could severely impact the status of unions. The dispute will determine whether nonunion employees working in the public sector should have to pay partial union dues. The deciding vote seemingly rests with the Court’s newest member, Justice Gorsuch.

Background:

The Illinois Public Relations Act allows for public sector unions to collect dues from nonmember employees.[2] These “fair share” fees cover a proportionate share of costs associated with collective bargaining and contract administration by the union. In 2015, the governor of Illinois sued to stop the payments, arguing that it violates the First Amendment by forcing nonunion employees to support the union’s political agenda. The federal district court dismissed the governor’s suit on standing grounds, but public sector employees, including the named plaintiff Mark Janus intervened. However, the district court dismissed the case because the Supreme Court already resolved this issue in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, and the Seventh Circuit agreed.[3]

The Arguments:

Janus actively seeks an overruling of Abood, arguing that the Court should have applied a heightened First Amendment scrutiny because fair share fees are compulsory speech influencing government policy. Under “heightened scrutiny,” the state could not compel employees to pay union fees if the employee is not a union member. While unions are often significant drivers of political policies outside of collective bargaining—such as voter initiatives and political campaigns—Janus argues that collective bargaining matters, such as asking for an increase in pay, are also inherently policy motivated because they affect state budgets.

The union (AFSCME) and the state of Illinois argue that Abood is settled precedent, and that the state has a compelling interest in managing its employees. The parties also assert that nonunion members still benefit from the work of the union in negotiating contracts and collective bargaining agreements, and therefore can expect to pay an equitable share.

All states require unions to represent and bargain for all employees in the unit or group that the union represents, not just union members. Thus, if Janus prevails, unions would continue to have the obligation to represent all workers in the group, but could not compel nonmembers to pay union fees.

Precedent:

In Abood, the Court held that fair share fees were constitutional, albeit unions could not request fees from nonmembers to pay for expenditures not germane to its duties as a collective bargaining representative. This ensured that nonmembers would not have to subsidize ideological activities they disagreed with.

However, Abood has been the subject of judicial criticism, most recently discussed in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.[4] The parties litigated similar issues to those presented in Janus; however, Justice Scalia died a short time after the Court heard oral arguments. The remaining justices were split, in a 4-4 decision, forcing the Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision that kept Abood intact.

Compelled Speech:

The issue of compelled speech in the form of payments has come up before outside the context of union dues. For example, the Court has previously heard this issue regarding state bar association fees for lawyers; assessments charged to farmers for advertising; and student activity fees used for political speakers and events.

In Keller v. State Bar of California, the Court held that state bar associations could not use compulsory dues for political purposes, and that all expenditures needed to be for the purpose of regulating or improving the legal profession.[5] The bar association in that case lobbied for issues relating to gun control, environmental regulation, and other political causes not germane to its goal of improving legal services available to the state.[6] Even though this involved a state bar association instead of a union, the Court still borrowed the reasoning from Abood, and held that the expenditures must be germane to the organization’s purpose.[7]

The Court heard similar issues in the cases Glickman and United Foods, which involved advertising assessments levied on agricultural producers.[8] In Glickman, the Court held that advertising assessments against growers, handlers, and processors for the marketing of California fruits did not violate the First Amendment as compelled speech.[9] The Court reasoned that the payments did not require those affected to endorse any kind of political speech.[10] The Court reached the opposite result in United Foods, where producers of mushrooms were forced to fund advertisements promoting mushroom sales.[11] However, the Court distinguished the assessments in Glickman as a matter incidental to a broader regulatory scheme not principally concerned with speech, which were not present in the case of the advertising dues for mushrooms.[12] Again, the Court used Abood as a basis for its reasoning.

Finally, similar issues to those in Janus have appeared in a university context, in the case Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth, where students objected to student activity fees ultimately used to fund political activities on campus.[13] The Court allowed the mandatory student fee because it furthered the purpose of the school, which was to initiate a free exchange of ideas and debate.[14] While Abood informed this case, the Court approached the issue from a public forum jurisprudence, which requires that the funding follow the rules of viewpoint neutrality.[15] Viewpoint neutrality justifies requiring the students to pay the fee and for ensuring integrity of the program’s operations.[16] Ultimately, the Court agreed that there was enough viewpoint neutrality in university procedures to justify the imposition of these mandatory student fees.[17]

Conclusion:

Even after a review of similar issues brought before the Supreme Court, the Court’s constant reliance upon Abood gives no further clues as to how the Janus litigation will end. In fact, the end of Abood could produce an impact that reaches even beyond unions. Of course, there is no denying that union funding would take a dramatic hit if Janus overrules Abood.

Justice Gorsuch, who remained silent throughout, holds the key to reaching finality on this long-litigated issue. As noted, the other justices have already examined the issue, which resulted in the 4-4 split from last fall. Thus, Justice Gorsuch will be the deciding vote. While many groups believe he will side with the conservative justices, it is hard to tell based on oral arguments alone. Abood is settled precedent, but Janus stands to pioneer less restricted and less complicated First Amendment jurisprudence.
_____________
Notes:

[1]The authors thank Hayden Hilliard, Diversity Writing Intern, for his helpful contributions to this article.
[2]5 ILCS 315 (2016).
[3]See Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977); Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 851 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2017).
[4]136 S. Ct. 1083 (mem.).
[5]496 U.S. 1, 17 (1990).
[6]Id. at 15.
[7]Id. at 9.
[8]See Glickman v Wileman Bros. & Elliot, Inc., 521 U.S. 457 (1997); United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405 (2001).
[9]Glickman, 521 U.S. at 477.
[10]Id. at 470–471.
[11]United Foods, 533 U.S. at 415.
[12]Id.
[13]529 U.S. 217, 223 (2000).
[14]Id. at 233.
[15]Id. at 221.
[16]Id. at 233.
[17]Id.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Snell & Wilmer | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Snell & Wilmer
Contact
more
less

Snell & Wilmer on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.