Whether Washington's compelling nonmember providers to accept a private organization as their exclusive representative for dealing with the State over public policy violates the First Amendment

QUESTION PRESENTED The Court recently held that a state “requir[ing] that a union serve as exclusive bargaining agent for its employees [is] itself a significant impingement on associational freedoms... that would not be tolerated in other contexts.” Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2478 (2018). The State of Washington compels individuals who operate State subsidized home-based childcare businesses, and who are not government employees, to accept an exclusive representative that speaks for them in petitioning, lobbying, and contracting with the State over public policies that affect their profession. The question presented is whether Washington’s compelling nonmember providers to accept a private organization as their exclusive representative for dealing with the State over public policy is one of the “other contexts” in which the “significant impingement on associational freedoms” is not tolerated by the First Amendment.