Is the First Amendment violated when a union causes a government employer to seize full union dues from the wages of a nonconsenting employee?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This petition concerns conduct substantively identical to the conduct this Court considered in Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees, Council 31, 585 U.S. 878, 920-30 (2018). Petitioner Camille Bourque was a nonmember who did not affirmatively consent to union deductions from her wages. Nevertheless, a union, through a government employer, forced her to pay not only agency fees, but full union dues. However, instead of applying the Janus case and finding that Bourque’s speech was unconstitutionally compelled, the Ninth Circuit declined to apply any constitutional scrutiny to the union or employer’s actions. The court reasoned that the statutory system operating here, in which a union instructs a public employer to take deductions from an employee’s wages and give it to the union, does not give rise to a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The questions presented are: 1. Is the First Amendment violated when a union causes a government employer to seize full union dues from the wages of a nonconsenting employee? 2. May a union avoid Section 1983 liability when taking full union dues from nonconsenting public employees by claiming the union “misused” its statutory authority? (i)