Can the State of Michigan compel practicing attorneys to fund an integrated bar association that takes policy positions, or does such a law fail exacting scrutiny and violate the attorneys' First-Amendment-rights?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Janus v. AFSCME, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018), this Court held that laws that impinge on public-sector employees’ First Amendment rights are subject to “exacting” scrutiny. Janus held that forcing public employees to subsidize a union’s speech and advocacy of public positions violated those employees’ First Amendment rights. Prior to Janus, the Court had developed two lines of case law together, frequently alternating and each building on the other—the aforementioned public-sector employees and whether they could be forced to fund a union—and attorneys and whether they could be forced to join and fund an integrated bar association. After Janus held that such compulsion in the union context was impermissible, the question is: Can the State of Michigan compel practicing attorneys to fund an integrated bar association that takes policy positions, or does such a law fail exacting scrutiny and violate the attorneys’ First Amendment rights?