WASHINGTON |
Public sector unions triumphed before the U.S. Supreme Court on
Tuesday when the justices preserved a vital source of cash for organized labor,
splitting 4-4 on a conservative challenge that had seemed destined for success
until Justice Antonin Scalia's death last month.
The case brought by non-union public school
teachers in California had targeted fees that many states force such workers to
pay unions in lieu of dues to fund collective bargaining and other activities.
A loss in this case would have deprived unions representing teachers, police,
transit workers, firefighters and other government employees of millions of
dollars annually and diminished their political clout.
The outcome illustrated the impact on the court of the Feb. 13
death of Scalia, the long-serving conservative justice who almost certainly
would have cast a decisive vote against the unions. But by virtue of splitting
4-4, the justices affirmed a 2014 lower-court ruling that allowed California to
compel non-union workers to pay the fees.
"The death of Justice Scalia has proved a disaster for
public sector workers who have their paychecks raided by unions," said
Iain Murray, vice president for strategy at the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.
The court, evenly divided with four liberals and four
conservatives, left intact a 1977 legal precedent that allowed such fees, which
conservatives have long abhorred. Conservatives for years have tried to curb
the influence of public sector unions, which typically back the Democratic
Party and liberal causes.
"The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected a political ploy to
silence public employees like teachers, school bus drivers, cafeteria workers,
higher education faculty and other educators to work together to shape their
profession," said Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the National
Education Association teachers union.
The case reached the high court after a Washington-based
conservative group, the Center for Individual Rights, sued on behalf of lead
plaintiff Rebecca Friedrichs, an elementary school teacher in Anaheim, and nine
other teachers. They argued the fees infringed upon the free-speech rights of
non-union workers under the U.S. Constitution.
'A DISASTER'
During Jan.
11 oral arguments in the case, Scalia was still on the bench, giving the court
a majority of five conservatives. The conservative justices during the
arguments voiced support for the non-union teachers.
It is the
second case in which the court has split 4-4 since Scalia died, with more
likely in the coming months, perhaps including major cases on abortion, voting
rights and contraception insurance coverage.
It remains
unclear when Scalia will be replaced. Senate Republicans have vowed to block confirmation
of President Barack Obama's nominee to replace Scalia, centrist appellate judge
Merrick Garland. Republicans fear Garland's confirmation would tilt the court
to the left for the first time in decades.
At issue in
the case decided on Tuesday were so-called agency fees equivalent to union
dues, currently mandatory for non-union workers under laws in about half the
states including California. The decision means the status quo remains, with
the unions able to collect fees from non-union workers.
California's
non-union teachers pay the union, which has 325,000 members, around $600
annually in mandatory fees for collective bargaining.
The
non-union teachers' lawyers said they plan to ask the court to rehear case.
"With
the death of Justice Scalia, this outcome was not unexpected," said Terry
Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights.
The split
decision means there is "ongoing doubt about the constitutionality of its
forcible collection of millions of dollars in dues," Pell added.
About 5 million
public sector employees are subject to union contracts that include mandatory
fee provisions, according to the National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation, which backed the non-union teachers.
Organized
labor had expressed worries that a ruling throwing out the fees would give
employees less incentive to join public-sector unions because they would get
all the benefits of collective bargaining undertaken by unions without having
to pay for it.
The teachers
who filed the lawsuit in 2013 asked the justices to overturn the 1977 Abood v.
Detroit Board of Education Supreme Court ruling that allowed laws that
permitted public sector unions to collect fees from workers who were not
members as long as the money was not spent on political activities.
Agency fees
are already banned in 25 states that have so-called right-to-work laws. In
those states, unions still represent workers but membership rates are lower.
Federal employee unions also cannot collect such fees.
The ruling
comes as a relief to organized labor because unionized civil servants in states
without right-to-work laws comprise its main power base.
The court
last week also split 4-4 split in a loan discrimination case. Last month, Dow
Chemical Co opted to settle a class action case pending before the court for
$835 million, citing Scalia's death as a reason. Scalia was seen as a reliable
vote for class action defendants.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley;
Editing by Will Dunham)
Vote
|
Author
|
Term
|
||||
4-4
|
Per Curiam
|
Disclosure:
Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in
various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief by the American
Federation of Teachers and American Association of University Professors in
support of the respondents in this case.
Issue: (1)
Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements
invalidated under the First Amendment; and (2) whether it violates the First Amendment
to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing
nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that
employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech.
SCOTUS blog Coverage
·
Symposium: Correcting the
“historical accident” of opt-out requirements (David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman)
·
Symposium: Will the Court
continue to recognize a distinction between bargaining with government and
lobbying the government? (Bill
Messenger)
Symposium: Public-sector union
Friedrichs v. California
Teachers Association
New challenge to
public employee unions, made simple (Lyle Denniston)
A new look at race and
politics in redistricting (Lyle Denniston)
New threat to public employee
unionism (Lyle Denniston)
Petition of the day (Maureen Johnston)
Date
|
Proceedings and Orders
|
Jan 26 2015
|
|
Feb 19 2015
|
Order extending time to file response to petition to and
including April 1, 2015, for all respondents.
|
Feb 24 2015
|
|
Feb 27 2015
|
|
Feb 27 2015
|
|
Feb 27 2015
|
|
Feb 27 2015
|
|
Feb 27 2015
|
Waiver of right of respondent Elliott Duchon to respond
filed.
|
Mar 2 2015
|
|
Mar 2 2015
|
|
Mar 2 2015
|
|
Mar 2 2015
|
|
Mar 30 2015
|
Waiver of right of respondent Kamala D. Harris, Attorney
General of California to respond filed.
|
Apr 1 2015
|
|
Apr 14 2015
|
|
Apr 15 2015
|
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 1, 2015.
|
Apr 27 2015
|
Response Requested . (Due May 27, 2015)
|
May 27 2015
|
|
May 27 2015
|
|
May 28 2015
|
Letter dated May 28, 2015, from counsel for petitioners
received waiving 14-day waiting period pursuant to Rule 15.5.
|
Jun 1 2015
|
|
Jun 2 2015
|
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 18, 2015.
|
Jun 16 2015
|
Rescheduled.
|
Jun 22 2015
|
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 25, 2015.
|
Jun 25 2015
|
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 29, 2015.
|
Jun 30 2015
|
Petition GRANTED.
|
Jul 7 2015
|
The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief
on the merits is extended to and including September 4, 2015.
|
Jul 7 2015
|
The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is
extended to and including October 26, 2015.
|
Jul 21 2015
|
Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support
of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the
petitioner.
|
Jul 24 2015
|
Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support
of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents
California Teachers Association, et al.
|
Jul 27 2015
|
Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support
of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California.
|
Sep 4 2015
|
Joint appendix (2 volumes) filed. (Statement of costs
filed)
|
Sep 4 2015
|
|
Sep 9 2015
|
Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support
of either party or of neither party received from counsel for Elliott Duchon,
Superintendent, Jurupa Unified School District.
|
Sep 10 2015
|
|
Sep 10 2015
|
|
Sep 10 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 11 2015
|
|
Sep 25 2015
|
Letter of Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General of
Illinois received. (Distributed)
|
Oct 1 2015
|
Letter of Jason Barclay, General Counsel to the Governor
received. (Distributed)
|
Oct 9 2015
|
Letter of Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General of
Illinois received. (Distributed)
|
Oct 19 2015
|
Application (15A422) for an extension of time within which
to file petitioners' reply brief on the merits, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
|
Oct 21 2015
|
The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is
further extended to and including November 6, 2015.
|
Oct 21 2015
|
Application (15A422) for an extension of time within which
to file petitioners' reply brief on the merits is GRANTED by Justice Kennedy,
and the time is extended to and including December 14, 2015.
|
Nov 6 2015
|
|
Nov 6 2015
|
|
Nov 6 2015
|
|
Nov 12 2015
|
|
Nov 12 2015
|
|
Nov 12 2015
|
|
Nov 12 2015
|
|
Nov 12 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate
in oral argument as amicus curiae, for enlargement of time for oral argument,
and for divided argument filed.
|
Nov 13 2015
|
Motion for divided argument filed by respondent Attorney
General of California.
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 13 2015
|
|
Nov 24 2015
|
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, January 11, 2016
|
Nov 30 2015
|
Motion for divided argument filed by respondent GRANTED.
|
Nov 30 2015
|
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate
in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED, and the
time is divided as follows: 40 minutes for petitioners, 15 minutes for the
Union Respondents, 15 minutes for respondent Attorney General of California,
and 10 minutes for the Solicitor General.
|
Dec 4 2015
|
Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
|
Dec 11 2015
|
CIRCULATED.
|
Dec 14 2015
|
|
Jan 11 2016
|
Argued. For petitioners: Michael A. Carvin, Washington, D.
C. For respondent Attorney General of California: Edward C. DuMont, Solicitor
General of California, San Francisco, Cal. For Union Respondents: David C.
Frederick, Washington, D. C. For United States as amicus curiae supporting
respondents: Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Department of
Justice, Washington,
D. C.
|
Victory for Unions as Supreme Court, Scalia Gone, Ties 4-4
 |
| Michael Mulgrew, UFT President |
Teachers unions dodge a bullet with Supreme Court’s split decision
The Supreme Court delivered a major victory Tuesday to public
unions, like the city teachers union, that will allow them to continue
collecting fees even from members who want to opt out.
“The unions have dodged
a bullet,” says David Bloomfield a professor of education, law, and public
policy at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center. “It potentially could
have seriously damaged the collective bargaining position of unions in school districts
across the country.”
The case was brought by 10 California teachers who argued that
they shouldn’t be required to pay fees that support union positions to which
they object, and which finance collective bargaining. Many observers assumed
the court’s conservative wing would significantly limit the collection of union
fees, but the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia left the court with a 4-4
split, effectively leaving the lower court’s pro-union ruling intact.
Local education experts and teacher unions
called the decision a win, but said it also raises the stakes of the upcoming
presidential election — and warned that the unions’ fight is not over.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has protected your
voice and your ability to join together to negotiate good wages and benefits
and to fight for what our students need,” Michael Mulgrew, president of the
United Federation of Teachers, wrote in a letter to union leaders immediately
after the decision.
But he cautioned that the 4-4 decision could
still be challenged, and that “well-funded” interests were likely to continue
the fight. “Today’s ruling won’t stop them,” Mulgrew said.
New York City teachers, along with guidance
counselors, school secretaries, and a host of other school staffers, have some amount taken
from their paychecks equivalent to union dues — a requirement of state
law. Almost all of those who pay are union members: Carl Korn, spokesman for
NYSUT, the state teachers union, said less than 3 percent of teachers statewide
pay those fees but remain unaffiliated with a union.
A ruling against the unions would have allowed
members to refuse to pay those fees, weakening union finances. Such a decision
would have had less of an impact in New York than in other states, Bloomfield
noted, because the state’s strong union sentiment and relatively high teacher
wages would reduce the incentives for teachers to refuse the fees.
Still, if a conservative judge replaces
Scalia, it is possible the court could take a similar case and deliver the blow
to organized labor that many pro-union groups fear.
On Tuesday, Mulgrew said that the U.S. Senate
should give Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s moderate pick to replace
Scalia, a fair hearing. Republican Senate leaders have said so far that they
will not consider a nominee during Obama’s presidency.
“It’s perhaps a temporary victory,” added
Bloomfield, “but given the unknowns regarding the composition of the Court in
the coming years, it’s no less important.”
