Do government employers and unions need clear and compelling evidence that employees waived their First Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing union speech in order to constitutionally seize payments for union speech from employees?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Court in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31 held that public employees have a First Amendment right not to subsidize union speech. 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2486 (2018). The Court also held that government employers and unions will violate that right by seizing payments for union speech from employees unless there is clear and compelling evidence the employees waived their constitutional right. Jd. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, has held that government employers and unions need only proof of employee contractual consent to take payments for union speech from employees, including employees who are not union members and object to the taking. The questions presented are: 1. Do government employers and unions need clear and compelling evidence that employees waived their First Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing union speech in order to constitutionally seize payments for union speech from employees? 2. When a union acts jointly with a state to deduct and collect union payments from employees’ wages, is that union a state actor participating in a state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983? @)