In a landmark ruling likely to rock organized labor unions across the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision forcing government employees to pay “fair share” fees that directly fund collective bargaining as well as political activities.
With a conservative majority restored at the high court after Pres. Donald J. Trump lifted Colorado’s Neil Gorsuch to the bench, the justices handed down a 5-4 decision in Janus v. the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees that the union in question engaged in political activities beyond the scope of labor negotiations. By using union dues to fund overtly political agendas including advertisements and campaign donations among others, unionized employees had a limited constitutional interest in the underwriting of this “speech.”
The conservative wing of the U.S. Supreme Court was apparently swayed by the First Amendment argument that the unions were collecting money with the intent to engage in political speech.
Limited Focus on Non-Union Members
The case in question focused almost exclusively on union fees that were being collected by non-union members. The decision does not — to date — necessarily apply to members who willingly enrolled.
“This procedure violates the First Amendment and cannot continue,” Associate Justice Samuel Alito states in the majority opinion. “Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a non-member’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.”
While that narrow decision appears to secure the ongoing revenue from union members, nothing in the decision prevents private or public-sector employees from opting out of a union and ending payments. That makes Democrats and the liberal justices on the high court uneasy.
In a fierce dissent, Associate Justice Elena Kagan claimed the majority fashioned the “First Amendment into a sword.” She railed against the majority with justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor in tow.
“Almost all economic and regulatory policy affects or touches speech,” Kagan reportedly said. “So the (court) majority’s road runs long. And at every stop are black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices. The First Amendment was meant for better things. It was meant not to undermine but to protect democratic governance — including over the role of public-sector unions.”
Running counter to Kagan’s very reasoning is the fact that suit was brought by a citizen who felt union fees were being used to make political speech that ran contrary to individual beliefs. Pres. Trump tweeted out his support for the 5-4 decision.
“Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them,” Pres. Trump tweeted. “Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!”
The liberal wing of the high court has almost exclusively backed the political agenda of the Democratic Party from which they were appointed. Now, employees may enjoy the freedom to exit unions that push political views they do not support.
Unions Must Change or Brace for Mass Exodus
Union officials had been holding their collective breath as this case worked its way thought the judicial system. The U.S. Supreme Court had kicked a similar case down the road after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. His passing left the high court in a 4-4 deadlock over the issue. After Neil Gorsuch was lifted to the court, experts predicted public-sector unions would suffer a significant loss.
The decision is likely to hinder the ability of union leaders to pick winners and losers in political races. Public-sector unions have been Democrat darlings, making huge donations. Between 2010-2016, labor unions reportedly sent more than $1 billion to Democrats, liberal advocacy organizations and anti-Republican groups.
“For decades, union officials have betrayed working Americans by spending their dues dollars to advance a left-wing political agenda — without prior approval,” Center for Union Facts communications director Luka Ladan reportedly said. “Big Labor is now the ATM of the Democratic Party, whether employees agree or not.”
Among the left’s recipients, Planned Parenthood received $805,000, the Democrat Governors Association landed more than $14 million and the liberal Center for American Progress gained more than $6 million on the backs of American union members. However, the recent decision undoubtedly puts the power back in the hands of everyday American workers’ right to choose.
This watershed decision will likely force organized labor to get out of politics or face a mass membership exodus.
~ Conservative Zone
It was meant not to undermine but to protect democratic (What Justice Kagan meant to say is democrat) governance — including over the role of public-sector unions.” Democratic governance is what is guaranteed under “freedom of speech”, but with the unions it is all or nearly all democrat (party) desired governance. Good ruling
For many years as a union member I never though it was right to take my dues and give it to a party that did not represent me . Thank You Supreme Court .
As a union member for many years , I never though it was right to use my due,s to support a party that didn,t support me or my rights . Thank you Supreme Court .
Very good point.
From the article: “In a fierce dissent, Associate Justice Elena Kagan claimed the majority fashioned the “First Amendment into a sword.” She railed against the majority with justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor in tow.”
Actually, coercing money out of union non-members is the “sword.” This ruling on the 1st Amendment is the shield against the unions “legalized” theft of money to force political speech from those non-members. Leave it to a politically activist Justice like Kagan to switch the truth around.
Would this be an example of “bad Behavior” that could qualify a Justice being Impeached from the Bench? The term of service specifically reads “good Behavior.” Even though it *could* include “for Life,” it is still contingent on the condition of “good Behavior.”
CONGRESSIONAL RINOS
Andy Biggs (AZ-5)
Mike Coffman (CO-6)
Barbara Comstock (VA-10)
Ryan Costello (PA-6)
Charlie Dent (PA-15)
Dan Donovan (NY-11)
Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-8)
Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-3)
Will Hurd (TX-23)
Walter Jones (NC-3)
David Joyce (OH-14)
John Katko (NY-24)
Leonard Lance (NJ-7)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2)
Patrick Meehan (PA-7)
Dave Reichert (WA-8)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27)
Christopher Smith (NJ-4)
Michael Turner (OH-10)
JUST A REMINDER TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC, THE NOMINEE TO THE SUPREME COURT NEED [ NOT ] NECESSARILY BE A JUDGE OF [ RECORD ] WHICH MEANS THAT ANY AVERAGE [ CITIZEN ] WITH NO LEGAL TRAINING AND ONLY A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ” Declaration “, the Main Body of the U.S. Constitution, and The BILL of RIGHT’S, May be NOMINATED and INSTALLED as a [ LEGITIMATE ] JUSTICE of the SUPREME COURT of these United States of AMERICA, RIGHT,??? The only other Factor to be considered would be an understanding and [ COMMAND ] of the ENGLISH Language as used by the [ FOUNDERS ] at the time of the [ WRITING ] OF ALL of these [ SACRED DOCUMENTS ] so that no needless [ CHANGES ] MIGHT BE CONSIDERED IN THE FUTURE[( BY THOSE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND )] the [ MOTIVATION ] of the Founding Fathers,RIGHT???
Public sector union funds that disproportionately support a single political party or its affiliates is a politically motivated activity.
Kagans back trail is paved with socialistic political activism, it is no surprise that she would ignore the constitutions direct wording of the nations founding document & continue to function as a political ideologue.
Strict constitutionalism as a requirement for all federal court appointees is the only long term safety measure that will preserve our constitutional republic.
Article IV section 4 of the Constitution specifically states that the Federal Government shall provide to each State in the Union a republican form of government.
It was this very Elena Kagan who, as Solicitor General of the United States, knocked out all those lawsuits challenging the traitorous usurper, obama’s right to seek the office of President of the United States. And, after they thought no one was still paying attention, here comes the payback: obama nominates her for our Supreme Court. Well, what do you know? What a coincidence! Can you say Quid Pro Quo, boys and girls?
This was a great ruling. There are many union workers that don’t have a problem with the unions taking a portion of their hard earned income and giving it to the democrat party. Then there are some that would rather see that money go to the republican party. Some say that it should be given equally amongst both parties. I say unions, with too much skin in the game, should be forbidden to donate to either party. Use the money to benefit the workers. Pay for their kids educations if some can’t afford it or help them out in other ways. But don’t make a political decision to curry favors from the politicians. The Supreme Court got it right. Let’s hope they continue to rule with this kind of common sense in the future.
Legislation and EO’s can be changed. A confirmed SCOTUS nominee is the real lasting legacy of a POTUS. Hopefully, the country is starting to see just how close we came to losing many of our rights and freedoms. Garland’s selection would have been a critical moment, giving the court a decided liberal bent. Thanks to Sen McConnell and former Sen Biden that did not happen. Now, imagine, with Garland in, the Hunchback of Chappaqua choosing Kennedy’s replacement along with Buzzy Ginsburg and Breyer retiring. That would have resulted in 6 young, liberal, activitists in place for several decades. While I have favorites from the list of 25, any of them will be preferable to we would be getting from the Democrats. Let’s hope there is one more in the not to distant future.