Learn more about Friedrichs
March 29, 2016: The Supreme Court rules 4-4 in the case, affirming the decision of the lower court.
"Victory for Unions as Supreme Court, Scalia Gone, Ties 4-4," Adam Liptak, New York Times, March 29, 2016
The Supreme Court on Tuesday handed organized labor a major victory, deadlocking 4 to 4 in a case that had threatened to cripple the ability of public unions to collect fees from workers who chose not to join and did not want to pay for the unions’ collective bargaining activities.
"Opinion analysis: Result but no guidance on public unions’ fees," SCOTUSblog, March 29, 2016
The most important labor union controversy to reach the Supreme Court in years sputtered to an end on Tuesday, with a four-to-four split, no explanation, and nothing settled definitely.
"Without Scalia, America's political landscape is being transformed," Scott Lemieux, The Guardian, March 29, 2016
Today’s decision, first of all, underscores the importance of the elections in November. There are many areas of the law where the difference between a swing vote on the Supreme Court appointed by Republican and Democratic president is huge. This case is a classic example.
"Public unions win fee case as U.S. Supreme Court deadlocks 4-4," Samantha Marcus, NJ.com, March 29, 2016
"From the beginning, this case was about breaking unions and silencing the voices of middle-class Americans." —Wendell Steinhauer, president of the New Jersey Education Association.
"A Narrow Escape for Public-Sector Unions," Matt Ford, The Atlantic, March 29, 2016
Tuesday’s deadlock means that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in favor of the teachers’ union will stand. But it also signaled that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who almost certainly joined Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas on one side of the split, would be willing to overturn Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the decision that became the basis for public-employee contracts. (The Court did not disclose how each justice voted in today’s decision.) That tosses the precedent’s ultimate fate to the next justice who serves on the Court.
Feb. 13, 2016: Justice Antonin Scalia dies, causing a likely 4-4 deadlock on the Court.
"What Will Become of Public Sector Unions Now?" Charlotte Garden, The Atlantic, Feb. 16, 2016
So what next for unions? It largely depends on what happens between now and November in the take-no-prisoners battle over Scalia’s replacement. With well-funded, conservative groups filing dozens of constitutional challenges to labor-friendly public-policy regimes, unions have a proverbial Sword of Damocles hanging over them. Replacing Scalia with another conservative justice would almost certainly bring it crashing down. A replacement by Obama, Clinton, or Sanders would likely remove the threat for now, and, depending on who the replacement is, could leave unions with the most labor-friendly Supreme Court since the 1960s.
"What happens to this term's close cases after the death of Antonin Scalia," Tom Goldstein, SCOTUSblog, Feb. 13, 2016
If Justice Scalia was part of a five-Justice majority in a case – for example, the Friedrichs case, in which the Court was expected to limit mandatory union contributions – the Court is now divided four to four. In those cases, there is no majority for a decision and the lower court’s ruling stands, as if the Supreme Court had never heard the case.
Jan. 11, 2016: The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case.
"SCOTUS May Undermine Labor Unions Based on a Profound Misconception," Steven Mazie, Big Think, Feb. 3, 2016
The error in Chief Justice Roberts’ naive argument against free-ridership is clear: He assumes that making fees voluntary will have little effect on union membership.
"Scalia's Putsch at the Supreme Court," Linda Greenhouse, New York Times, Jan. 21, 2016
What matters is the glaring anti-union animus of the conservative majority and the obvious fact that if everything a public employee union does is deemed political, the Abood compromise, based on a distinction between collective-bargaining activities and everything else, necessarily collapses.
"Case Could Widen Free-Speech Gap Between Unions and Corporations," Adam Liptak, New York Times, Jan. 18, 2016
The Friedrichs case illuminated a gap in the treatment of capital and labor. The court has long allowed workers to refuse to finance unions’ political activities. But shareholders have no comparable right to refuse to pay for corporate political speech.
"The Friedrichs Case: A Time Bomb for Unions," Steven Greenhouse, Washington Post, Jan. 15, 2016
In a post-Friedrichs world, teachers unions could have fewer resources for programs to upgrade their members’ skills and to keeping state legislatures from banning tenure or “last in, first out” layoff protections.
"Strong Unions, Strong Democracy," Richard D. Kahlenberg, New York Times, Jan. 12, 2016
A decision in favor of the plaintiff would effectively slam the door on an era in which some conservatives joined liberals in recognizing that vibrant unions help make our democracy work. This is radicalism, not conservatism.
"Will the U.S. Supreme Court Gut Public-Employee Unions?" Garrett Epps, The Atlantic, Jan. 12, 2016
The most important fact about Monday’s oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association is that this case—one of the most important of the term—will be decided on the basis of no facts at all.
"Supreme Court Case on Public Sector Union Fees Rouses Political Suspicions," Noam Scheiber, New York Times, Jan. 10, 2016
The challenge to nearly 40 years of legal precedent on public sector union fees has shined a particular spotlight on a group of libertarian-minded public interest lawyers known as the Center for Individual Rights. The center had generated a list of possible plaintiffs by essentially cold-calling teachers and organizations who appeared to oppose public sector unions.
“Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association: A Deceptive Attack on Organized Labor,” Huffington Post, Jan. 4, 2016
Allowing free rides and making it more difficult for unions to negotiate reduces the bargaining power -- and hence the likelihood of securing adequate compensation and good working conditions -- for all members. This lawsuit isn't actually about free speech. Instead, it's about undermining organized labor and further diminishing union strength and worker bargaining power.
"How Defunding Public Sector Unions Will Diminish Our Democracy," The Century Foundation Issue brief, January 2016
The case pits the right of public employees to band together and form effective unions to pursue the common interests of workers against the free speech rights of dissenting public employees to abstain from funding collective bargaining efforts with which they disagree.1 A decision by the Court against the teachers association could not only significantly weaken public sector unions, but also endanger the nation’s core democratic values.
“The truth about Friedrichs,” Michael Mulgrew, New York Teacher, Dec. 3, 2015
Let us be clear: Friedrichs isn’t about the First Amendment; it is about undermining this country’s labor unions because we are the last great defenders of working people and the middle class. They don’t just want to abolish agency fees; they want to abolish our unions and undo the decades of progress we have made.
“Right wing bankrolls union-busting court case,” Linda Ocasio, New York Teacher, Dec. 3, 2015
Taking a page from the playbook of civil rights activists, the right wing has embraced the strategy of using litigation to drive national policy change.
“Supreme battle,” Micah Landau, New York Teacher, Nov. 5, 2015
The ultimate purpose by those backing the Friedrichs suit is to erode public-sector unions’ financial viability, thereby diminishing their ability to advocate on behalf of their members and defend public services, such as public education. “Unions are mobilizing institutions that are at the center of the Democratic Party, and that’s more important than actual money,” labor historian Nelson Lichtenstein said. “Conservatives understand that and would like to weaken them.”
“Who’s Behind Anti-Union SCOTUS Case?” Adele M. Stan, The American Prospect, Oct. 29, 2015
Justice Samuel Alito’s invitation to reconsider Aboodhelped ensure that Friedrichs tore through the legal system at high speed. But the real force propelling Friedrichs’gallop through the courts was the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), the right-wing pro-bono law group that is representing teacher Rebecca Friedrichs and her fellow plaintiffs.
“Supreme Court justices at work, bashing unions,” Raymond Hogler, The Hill, Oct. 13, 2015
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is pursuing a vendetta against organized labor. As the point man for all things anti-union in the court's jurisprudence, Alito next will target teachers' unions in California.
“The Supreme Court Case That Could Decimate American Public Sector Unionism,” Moshe Z. Marvit, In These Times, Feb. 3, 2015
Since all workers in unionized workplaces share the benefits of unionization — and since unions are legally compelled to represent all of those workers, which requires use of unions’ financial resources — unions say that workers who choose not to become members of unions must at least pay fair-share fees in order to not become “free riders,” gaining benefits from union representation without paying for them. From its beginnings, the Friedrichs case has been specially crafted for the Supreme Court, and if successful would affect tens of thousands of union contracts and would force millions of public employees into a right-to-work model.