Whether a state-designated exclusive representative is a state actor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when it directs a public employer to deduct dues from non-union employees who have not affirmatively consented

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In the cases below, public sector unions directed government employers to deduct union dues from Petitioners’ wages, even though they were non-union public employees who had not affirmatively consented to the deductions. Petitioners’ employers continued the unauthorized deductions even after Petitioners objected. For nearly a half century, this Court has implicitly found unions to be state actors under these circumstances, potentially liable for constitutional violations when directing the government to divert non-consenting employees’ wages for union dues. Despite these decisions, and in conflict with the Seventh Circuit, the Ninth Circuit has since Janus v. Am. Fed. of State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), consistently held that a union cannot be liable for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because a union is not a “state actor” so long as it claims to have a public employee’s affirmative consent. The questions presented are: 1. Isastate-designated exclusive representative a state actor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when it directs a public employer to deduct dues from non-union employees who have not affirmatively consented? 2. Are public employees’ due process rights violated when the public employer diverts employees’ wages to a union with no pre-deprivation procedural safeguards? (i)