you cannot communicate with a stone wall?
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, _ US _ (2018) is a US labor law case, concerning the right of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members for the service of collective bargaining. Under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. Janus v. AFSCME is a current case that challenges their legality.
Contents
Facts
Illinois Republican Governor Bruce Rauner filed suit, claiming that fair-share agreements are unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech. Rauner was later dropped from the case, but Mark Janus, an Illinois social worker covered by a collective agreement, also claimed that he should not need to pay fees to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees because he is not a member of the union. Under Illinois law, AFSCME and other unions are allowed to charge workers minimum fees for the service of collective bargaining. As unions have a duty of fair representation to all workers in a bargaining unit,[1] this has been allowed under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, and was confirmed in 1977 by the US Supreme Court in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.[2] Janus and others argue that, following Harris v. Quinn (2014), fair-share agreements violate their right to free speech because a union can use money to contribute to political campaigns that they may not believe in.[3]
Amicus & Additional Briefs
In support of petitioner Janus
- Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions Filed (7/7/17)
- Pacific Legal Foundation (7/7/17)
- Rebecca Friedrichs, petitioner in Friedrichs v. CTA (7/10/17)
- Cato Institute (7/10/17)
- Debora Nearman (7/10/17)
- Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (7/10/17)
- The Competitive Enterprise Institute (7/10/17)
- Michigan and Eighteen other States (7/10/17)
- Atlantic Legal Foundation (7/10/17)
- Mackinac Center for Public Policy (7/10/17)
- Reply of petitioner Mark Janus (8/29/17)
- James Madison Center for Free Speech (11/14/17)
- Cato Institute (11/15/17)
- Pacific Legal Foundation (12/1/17)
- Brief of petitioner Mark Janus (11/29/17)
- Michigan, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (12/5/17)
- The Rutherford Institute (12/5/17)
- Freedom Foundation and Economist (12/6/17)
- Competitive Enterprise Institute (12/6/17)
In support of AFSCME
- Brief of respondent American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 in opposition (8/11/17)
- Brief of respondents Lisa Madigan and Michael Hoffman in opposition (8/10/17)
- California Public-school Teachers (12/6/17)
In support of neither party
- Charles Fried and Robert C. Post (12/6/17)
Oral arguments
The Supreme Court heard the oral submissions of the parties on February 26, 2018.
See also
Notes
- ^ Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild Inc., 525 US 33 (1998)
- ^ 431 US 209 (1977)
- ^ 573 US __ (2014) per Alito J
References
- E McGaughey, 'Fascism-Lite in America (or the Social Ideal of Donald Trump)' (2018) British Journal of American Legal Studies, on background of Supreme Court approach to labor
- B Sachs, 'Agency Fees and the First Amendment' (2018) Harvard Law Review, Forthcoming, on the jurisprudence behind the First Amendment, arguing that AFSCME should succeed
No comments:
Post a Comment