Whether a public sector labor union acts as a 'state actor' under Section 1983 when collecting union dues through a collective bargaining agreement with a government employer without explicit employee consent

No question identified. : Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13(5), the above-captioned hereby move for an extension of time of 30 days, up to and including April 10, 2024, for the filing of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. In support of this request, Atishma Kant and Marlene Hernandez state 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 December 20, 2023. Unless an extension is granted, the deadline for filing a petition for certiorari will be March 11, 2024. Applicants are 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. Atishma Kant and Marlene Hernandez signed membership agreements with their union, Service Employees International Local 721, that stated that they may resign “in accordance with applicable provisions in the memorandum of understanding [collective bargaining agreement or CBA]” that was in effect at the time they signed those membership agreements. When they resigned in the correct window period pursuant to the applicable CBA, a fact not disputed by any party, they were told that without their knowledge that the union had extended it for another two years. Their public employer and union continued to take their wages for two years without their consent, and then extended the CBA a second time. Despite the fact that the CBA was between a union and a public employer, the Ninth Circuit Panel opinion states, without any legal precedent, that “a union entering into a contract with a government employer does not engage in state action.” 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case presents the issue of whether a union is a state actor when acting pursuant to state policy under Section 1983 because it both uses a state statute to collect worker’s lawfully earned wages and also acts in contractual partnership with a government employer through a Collective Bargaining Agreement. Lastly, the Ninth Circuit’s decision 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). As in the Janus cases, Petitioners challenge an unconstitutional state system utilized by state actors. See Exhibit 1. 4. Petitioner’s Counsel of Record, Ms. Shella Alcabes, has been on maternity leave since December 25, 2023. Ms. Alcabes also has substantial argument and briefing obligations when she returns from maternity leave, including two other petitions for Writs of Certiorari in Hubbard v. Service Employees International Union, Local 2015, et al., No. 21-16408 (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)!; an oral argument in Parde v. Service Employees International, 721, et al., No. 22-03320 (C.D. Cal 2022), appeal docketed, No. 23-55021 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2023) (pending May or June 2024 date); oral argument in Freedom Foundation v. DCAS, No. 1 Requests for extensions will be filed in Hubbard v. Service Employees International Union, Local 2015, et al., No. 21-16408 (9th Cir. 2024) (due March 11, 2024) and Kant, et al., v. Service Employees Int