Supreme Court Will Consider Challenge To Union Dues
NBC Nightly News (6/30, story 12, 0:20, Holt) reported that the Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that “it will take up a case that could make or break the future of public unions in this country.” The case “challenges rules that make teachers’ pay fees to unions even if they aren’t members or they don’t agree with the union’s positions.” Arguments will be heard in the fall.
The Washington Post (7/1, Barnes) reported that the court will consider “whether public employees can be compelled to pay fees to unions they do not want to join, a provision that union leaders say is vital to their continued success.” The justices “will consider a case from a group of California teachers who say paying fees violates their free speech rights when they disagree with the positions the unions take.” The court “nearly 40 years ago said that states may allow unions to collect fees from non-members to pay for collective bargaining costs, but not for the unions’ political spending.”
The New York Times (7/1, Liptak, Subscription Publication) reported that the case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, “was brought by California teachers who said that being compelled to pay union fees to subsidize activities they disagreed with violated their First Amendment rights.” The Times notes that limiting “the power of public unions has long been a goal of conservative groups, and they welcomed Tuesday’s development,” while union leaders “expressed alarm at the court’s decision to consider the issue.”
Reuters (7/1, Hurley) reported that several unions, including the California Teachers Association, had urged the court to decline to hear the case, as did California Attorney General Kamala Harris (D).
The Wall Street Journal (7/1, Subscription Publication) editorialized that the case gives the court a chance to end forced dues payments for public sector employees, something that has been allowed since the court’s 1977 ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. The Journal notes that the court last year signaled a willingness to revisit that precedent in a ruling that forcing home workers to pay fees to a union they did not wish to join violated their First Amendment rights.
