No. 23-1113

Atishma Kant, et al. v. Service Employees International Union, Local 721, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-04-12
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: affirmative-consent collective-bargaining compelled-speech first-amendment labor-union labor-unions public-employee public-sector waiver-of-rights
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity FirstAmendment DueProcess LaborRelations Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri ClassAction
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Can a public sector labor union and government employer unilaterally waive public employees' First Amendment rights through a collective bargaining agreement without the employee's knowledge or direct involvement?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Public sector labor unions cannot use state law to take money from a nonmember public employee’s lawfully earned wages for use in political speech unless the employee affirmatively consents. Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., Mun. Emps. Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2486 (2018). Since this waiver must be demonstrated by clear and compelling evidence showing the employee acted voluntarily, and with sufficient information and knowledge, a third party cannot act on the employee's behalf. That is to say, affirmative consent requires affirmative action on the part of the consenting employee. Any procedure failing this standard enables the union and government to compel the employee’s speech, and runs afoul of the First Amendment. Id. The questions presented are: 1. Cana public sector labor union and government employer unilaterally waive public employees’ First Amendment rights through a collective bargaining agreement without the employee’s knowledge or direct involvement? 2. Does a public sector labor union act under “color of law” when it collectively bargains with the government for a waiver of an employee’s First Amendment right to freedom from compelled speech? (i)

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-09-13
2024-09-13
Reply of Atishma Kant, et al. submitted.
2024-08-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-07-22
Brief of respondent California Attorney General Rob Bonta in opposition filed.
2024-07-22
Brief of respondents Service Employees International Union, Local 721, et al. in opposition filed.
2024-07-22
Brief of California Attorney General Rob Bonta in opposition submitted.
2024-07-22
Brief of Service Employees International Union, Local 721 in opposition submitted.
2024-05-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 22, 2024, for all respondents.
2024-05-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 7, 2024 to July 22, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-05-08
Response Requested. (Due June 7, 2024)
2024-05-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2024.
2024-05-01
Waiver of right of respondent Service Employees International Union, Local 721 to respond filed.
2024-04-30
Waiver of right of respondent California Attorney General Rob Bonta to respond filed.
2024-04-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 13, 2024)
2024-02-28
Application (23A795) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until April 10, 2024.
2024-02-22
Application (23A795) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 11, 2024 to April 10, 2024, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

Atishma Kant, et al.
Shella Sadovnik AlcabesFreedom Foundation, Petitioner
Timothy Ray SnowballFreedom Foundation, Petitioner
California Attorney General Rob Bonta
Aaron Daniel PennekampCalifornia Department of Justice, Respondent
Anya BinsaccaCalifornia Department of Justice, Respondent
Service Employees International Union, Local 721
Scott A. KronlandAltshuler Berzon, LLP, Respondent