Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does it violate the First Amendment for a state and union to compel objecting employees to remain union members and to subsidize the union and its speech?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Court in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31 held it violates the First Amendment for a state and union to compel employees to subsidize union speech. 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2486 (2018). Notwithstanding Janus, the State of California continues to compel objecting employees to subsidize union speech pursuant to “maintenance of membership” agreements that require all employees who are union members to remain union members, and to pay full union dues, for the duration of the collective bargaining agreement. Also notwithstanding Janus, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held a “maintenance of membership requirement does not implicate the First Amendment.” Pet.App. 5. The questions presented are: 1. Does it violate the First Amendment for a state and union to compel objecting employees to remain union members and to subsidize the union and its speech? 2. To constitutionally compel objecting employees to remain union members and to subsidize the union and its speech, do states and unions need clear and compelling evidence the objecting employees waived their First Amendment rights? (i)
2023-04-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/28/2023.
2023-04-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/21/2023.
2023-01-18
Reply of petitioners Jonathan Savas, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2023-01-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
2023-01-03
Brief of respondents State Respondents in opposition filed.
2023-01-03
Brief of respondent California Statewide Law Enforcement Association in opposition filed.
2022-12-02
Brief amicus curiae of The Fairness Center filed.
2022-12-02
Brief amicus curiae of Protect the First Foundation filed.
2022-11-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 3, 2023, for all respondents.
2022-11-15
Motion of respondent CSLEA to extend the time to file a response from December 2, 2022 to January 3, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-11-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 3, 2023.
2022-11-14
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 2, 2022 to January 3, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-11-02
Response Requested. (Due December 2, 2022)
2022-10-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/4/2022.
2022-10-11
Brief amicus curiae of Americans for Fair Treatment filed.
2022-10-11
Brief amicus curiae of Goldwater Institute filed.
2022-10-05
Waiver of right of respondents California State Controller Betty Yee and California Attorney General Rob Bonta to respond filed.
2022-10-04
Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
2022-09-27
Waiver of right of respondent California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency to respond filed.
2022-09-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 11, 2022)
States of Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia