Corporate Accountability

RELEASE: Justices Hear Argument in Critical Labor Case

WASHINGTON— This morning the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Janus v. AFSCME, a case featuring the latest challenge to fair-share fees that non-union public-sector workers have to pay in some states to the unions that bargain for wages and benefits on behalf all employees, union members and non-members alike. Constitutional Accountability Center filed a brief in support of the constitutionality of these fair-share fees on behalf of current and former state and local Republican elected officials. CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod and Civil Rights Director David Gans were at the Court for this morning’s argument and issued the following reaction:

“This morning Justice Kennedy evinced a real hostility to public sector unions, expressing concerns that they would contribute to higher taxes and larger government,” CAC Chief Counsel Gorod said. “But those are quintessential policy judgments, not constitutional concerns. As the Republican state and local officeholders that we represent explained in their brief to the Court, there is no First Amendment bar to public sector agency fair share fees, which means the decision whether to allow them is a policy decision that is best made by state officials. That’s what the Supreme Court recognized forty years ago, and it should recognize it again now.”

“As the attorneys defending the Illinois law recognized,” CAC Civil Rights Director Gans continued, “the First Amendment allows state governments broad authority to manage their workforces effectively and efficiently. Thus, there is no reason to constitutionalize one uniform rule for the entire country. Rather, as the Court recognized forty years ago, the states should have broad leeway to choose how to run their workplaces to preserve labor peace and ensure the efficient delivery of services. A ruling upholding Illinois’s requirement that state employees pay their fair share of the costs of collective bargaining is the only one that would be consistent with both our First Amendment and federalism principles.”

#

Resources:

CAC’s brief in Janus v. AFSCME on behalf of Republican current and former state and local officeholders: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/janus-v-american-federation-of-state-county-and-municipal-employees-council-31-et-al-u-s-sup-ct/

“GOP state lawmakers join Supreme Court brief asking to reject challenge to compulsory union fees,” Cook County Record, January 22, 2018: https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/511319469-gop-state-lawmakers-join-supreme-court-brief-asking-to-reject-challenge-to-compulsory-union-fees

##

Now in our tenth year, Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit the new CAC website at www.theusconstitution.org

###

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2024

QUICK TAKE: Corporate Interests at the Supreme Court, 2023-2024 Term

Conservative supermajority discards precedent, shifts power to judges, and hobbles agency efforts to enforce the...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
June 24, 2024

The Supreme Court’s War on Working People Just Got a Little Worse

Balls and Strikes
The decision in Starbucks Corporation v. McKinney is part of a long tradition of the Supreme Court...
Corporate Accountability
 

Intuit, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

In Intuit Inc v. Federal Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the FTC’s authority to issue cease-and-desist orders against false and misleading advertising is constitutional.
Corporate Accountability
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: In narrow ruling, Supreme Court rejects baseless effort to shield corporate-derived income from taxation

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Moore v. United...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
June 13, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court’s Disappointing Decision in Starbucks Union Case Fails to Account for History

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney,...
By: Smita Ghosh
Corporate Accountability
May 30, 2024

Supreme Court gives New Yorkers second shot in escrow interest-payment fight

Courthouse News Service
WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court on Thursday gave New York homeowners another shot at...
By: Smita Ghosh, Kelsey Reichmann