Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass'n

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

Argued January 11, 2016
Decided March 29, 2016
Full case name Rebecca Friedrichs, et al., Petitioners v. California Teachers Association, et al.
Docket nos. 14-915
Argument Oral argument
Holding
The judgment was affirmed by an equally divided court.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Case opinions
Per curiam.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association is a United States labor law case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States. At issue in the case was whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled, with public-sector "agency shop" arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment, and whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech. Specifically, the case concerns public sector collective bargaining by the California Teachers Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association.[1]

Justice Antonin Scalia died shortly after the case was argued in front of the Supreme Court, leaving only eight members to decide the case. In the end, the result was a non-precedential per curiam opinion affirming the lower-court decision by an equally divided Supreme Court.[2]

Conservative law firm Center for Individual Rights (CIR), which brought the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case with funding from the Bradley Foundation,[3] said it plans to ask the Supreme Court to reevaluate the case once a ninth justice has been appointed to replace Scalia.[4]

Background

In the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court upheld the maintaining of a union shop in a public workplace. Public school teachers in Detroit had sought to overturn the requirement that they pay fees equivalent to union dues on the grounds that they opposed public sector collective bargaining and objected to the ideological activities of the union. The court affirmed that the union shop, which is legal in the private sector, is also legal in the public sector. They found that non-members may be assessed dues for "collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes", but that objectors to union membership or policy may not have their dues used for other ideological or political purposes.[5]

Case

Center for Individual Rights President Terence J. Pell initiated contact with the plaintiffs, ten public schoolteachers who had paid agency fees.[3] The lead plaintiff, Orange County elementary teacher Rebecca Friedrichs, had previously served on her local union's executive committee.[6]

Decision

Many legal commentators had speculated that the death of Justice Antonin Scalia would make the Court either divide evenly on the case, letting the Ninth Circuit's ruling stand against the plaintiffs but not setting a precedent, or call for reargument once Scalia's vacancy has been filled.[7][8]

On March 29, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a one-line per curiam opinion affirming the Ninth Circuit; as a decision made by an equally divided court, the case is not considered to set a legal precedent.[9][10]

References

  1. ↑ "About CTA". California Teachers Association. Retrieved 2016-04-06.
  2. ↑ Lithwick, Dahlia (March 29, 2016). "Public Sector Unions Just Dodged a Major Bullet at the Supreme Court". Slate.
  3. 1 2 Mahoney, Brian (January 10, 2016). "Conservative group nears big payoff in Supreme Court case". Politico.
  4. ↑ Phenicie, Carolyn (February 21, 2016). "After Scalia, a 4-4 Friedrichs Decision? Lawyers Say There’s Precedent to Demand a Re-Hearing". Retrieved April 4, 2016.
  5. ↑ "Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ. - 431 U.S. 209 (1977)". Justia US Supreme Court Center. Retrieved February 13, 2012.
  6. ↑ Egelko, Bob (January 10, 2016). "High court may hit public worker unions hard in Friedrichs case". San Francisco Chronicle.
  7. ↑ Charlotte Garden. "Scalia's Death and the Consequences for Unions - The Atlantic". The Atlantic. Retrieved March 29, 2016.
  8. ↑ Linda Hirshman (December 31, 2015). "Why the next Supreme Court vacancy will favor liberals, no matter who retires". Washington Post. Retrieved March 29, 2016.
  9. ↑ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-915_1bn2.pdf
  10. ↑ Savage, David G. (March 29, 2016). "Supreme Court's tie vote upholds public employee fees for unions". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 29, 2016.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Tuesday, April 12, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.