Whether it violates the First Amendment to designate a labor union to represent and speak for public-sector employees who object to its advocacy on their behalf

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Three times in recent years, this Court has recognized that schemes compelling public-sector employees to associate with labor unions impose a “significant impingement” on those employees’ First Amendment rights. Knox v. SEIU, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 310-11 (2012); Harris v. Quinn, 134 S. Ct. 2618, 2639 (2014); Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2483 (2018). The most recent of those decisions, Janus, likewise recognized that a state’s appointment of a labor union to speak for its employees as their exclusive representative is “itself a significant impingement on associational freedoms that would not be tolerated in other contexts.” 138 S. Ct. at 2478. The court of appeals in this case concluded that compelled association regimes are “in direct conflict with the principles enunciated in Janus,” Pet.App.3, but upheld Ohio’s regime anyway because it considered itself bound to do so by Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984). The questions presented are: 1. Whether it violates the First Amendment to designate a labor union to represent and speak for publicsector employees who object to its advocacy on their behalf. 2. Whether Knight should be overruled.