Whether it violates the First Amendment for a state and union to seize union dues or fees from employees' wages without proof the employees waived their First Amendment right not to subsidize a union and its speech

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31, this Court held that states and unions cannot take money from public employees’ wages unless the employees first waive their First Amendment right not to subsidize union speech. See 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2486 (2018). The Ninth Circuit failed to apply this standard below and, instead, held that (i) evidence of union membership alone, rather than proof of a knowing waiver, shows affirmative consent to a state’s deduction of union dues or fees from its employees’ wages, and (ii) unions do not act under “color of law” for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when they collectively bargain with states to authorize and enforce restrictions on employees’ right not to subsidize union speech, and then work with states to deduct money from employees’ wages. In so doing, the court sanctioned Washington’s practice of preventing its employees from exercising their right under Janus not to subsidize union speech without proof they knowingly waived that right. The questions presented are: 1. Whether it violates the First Amendment for a state and union to seize union dues or fees from employees’ wages without proof the employees waived their First Amendment right not to subsidize a union and its speech. 2. Whether a union engages in conduct under color of law for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when it collectively bargains with a state to authorize and enforce restrictions on public employees’ First Amendment right not to subsidize union speech, and then works with a state to deduct union dues or fees from employees’ wages. (i)