Whether a law that skews the debate over the value of public-sector unions and undermines public-sector employees' opt-out rights by giving incumbent unions exclusive access to information necessary to communicate with public-sector employees is consistent with the First Amendment

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioners are individual in-home care providers in Washington state who are situated identically to the quasi-public employees in Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (2014), and a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring that workers understand their constitutional right not to subsidize union speech. After Harris, petitioners communicated with other providers to spread that message and to encourage them to oust one of their incumbent unions. Those efforts were initially quite successful, with large numbers of providers exercising their opt-out rights. But those efforts depended on access to state lists of providers and their contact information. Because providers are widely dispersed and have high turnover rates, only the state, which facilitates their payment, has that information. Even the incumbent unions depend on the state for that critical speech-enabling information. Frustrated by petitioners’ success, the incumbent unions worked to convert the state’s monopoly over that information into a duopoly. They drafted and bankrolled a ballot initiative amending Washington’s public-records laws to deny virtually everyone but the incumbent unions access to that information. Voters approved that initiative, and, over a 40-page dissent, the Ninth Circuit upheld it. The question presented is: Whether a law that skews the debate over the value of public-sector unions and undermines publicsector employees’ opt-out rights by giving incumbent unions exclusive access to information necessary to communicate with public-sector employees is consistent with the First Amendment.