Whether a public employee can seek relief under Section 1983 for nonconsensual union dues deductions that violate First Amendment free speech protections

No question identified. : Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13(5), the abovecaptioned hereby moves for an extension of time of 60 days, up to and including May 10, 2024, for the filing of a petition for a Writ of Certiorari. In support of this request, Tanishia Hubbard (“Hubbard”) states as follows: 1.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on October 23, 2023 (Exhibit 1); and issued its order denying rehearing en banc on December 12, 2023 (Exhibit 2). The mandate issued on December 20, 2023. Unless an extension is granted, the deadline for filing a petition for certiorari will be March 11, 2024. Applicant is filing this application at least ten days before that date, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 13.5. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1). 2. Hubbard was never a union member and never signed any agreement with the union in her job as an in-home healthcare worker. Despite this fact, the union, Service Employees International Union Local 2015, which negotiated on her behalf, and her public employer, took money from her wages for over a year without her consent. Additionally, the statute pursuant to which Hubbard’s employer and union took her money placed no obligation on the union to actually possess her consent, nor is it disputed that the union had no consent. 3. This Ninth Circuit panels’ decision presents an issue of exceptional importance as to whether public employees suffering compelled speech injuries related to nonconsensual union dues deductions can seek relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This case addresses the difference between the Oregon statute in Wright v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union Loc. 503, 48 F.4th 1112 (9th Cir. 2022), (citing, ORS 243.806(2)) and the California statute in a significant way: the California statutes (California Government Code § 1157.12 and § 1153) do not obligate the union to actually possess employee consent when it transmits the names of employees to the state. The entire onus is on the state to “rely” on whatever the union says, whether the union actually possesses the employees’ consent for dues deduction or not. The Ninth Circuit Panel did not address this difference at all. See Exhibit 1. 4. The Ninth Circuit’s decision also conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and Seventh Circuit case law with respect to the issue of state action in the context of nonconsensual union dues. In Janus, the Supreme Court made clear both government officials and unions operating under state deduction systems and without contractual authorization or affirmative consent are state actors under Section 1983 when they take and spend a public employee’s lawfully earned wages on objectionable political speech. Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2486 (2018). 5. Petitioner’s Counsel of Record, Ms. Shella Alcabes, has been on maternity leave since December 25, 2023, and will not be returning to work until April 15, 2024, which is more than one month after the original due date of this pending Petition. Ms. Alcabes also has substantial argument and _ briefing obligations when she returns from maternity leave, including two other petitions for Writs of Certiorari in Kant, et al., v. Service Employees International, et al., No. 22-55904 (9th Cir. 2024) (Due March 11, 2024), and Jimenez v. Service Employees International Union, Local 2015, et al., No. 22-55331 (9th Cir. 2024) (due March 11, 2024),1 oral argument in Parde v. Service Employees International, 721, et al., No. 2203320 (C.D. Cal. 2023), appeal docketed, No. 23-55021 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2023) (pending May or June 2024 date), oral argument in Freedom Foundation v. DCAS, No. 152725/22 (NY Sup. Dec. 6, 2022), appeal docketed, No. 2023-01154 (NY App Div. Mar. 6, 2023) (scheduled April 16, 2024), and oral argument in 1 Requests for extensions will also be filed in Hubbard v. Service Employees International Union, Local 2015, et al., No. 21-16408 (9th Cir. 2024