Whether a public-sector union that invokes the aid of state officials to deduct union dues from a nonconsenting public-sector employee acts 'under color of law' for purposes of 42 U.S.C. §1983

In Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31 , 585 U.S. 878 (2018), this Court held that public-sector employees have a First Amendment right to choose not to pay dues to public-sector unions. Ever since, unions and recalcitrant states have searched for creative ways around that decision. This case involves the latest such effort. California law provides that the state must deduct union dues from an employee’s wages upon certification from the union that the employee is a union member, and that the deductions cannot stop until the union informs the state that the employee opted out. But unions are not quick to share news of resignations with the state, as this case demonstrates. Petitioner told his union to cancel his membership in December 2019, but the union did not do so until nearly two years later, afte r extracting nearly $1,000 more in union dues. Petitioner therefore sued the union (and state officials) under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to vindicate his First Amendment right and recover damages. But in the decisi on below, the Ninth Circuit held that petitioner has no remedy, as the union purportedly did not act “under color of state law” when invoking the aid of state of ficials to seize his wages (and the state officials en joy sovereign immunity). That decision renders Janus rights nugatory, conflicts with this Court’s state-action precedent, and entrenches a circuit split. The question presented is: Whether a public-sector union that invokes the aid of state officials to deduct union dues from a nonconsenting public-sector employee acts “under color of law” for purpos es of 42 U.S.C. §1983.