AS A GENERAL MATTER, Americans like to speak their mind. And since the earliest days of our nation, as political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville noted, Americans have joined associations to amplify their voices in common cause. The First Amendment protects these fundamental rights.
The freedoms of speech and association have corollary, inverse rights: the right to not speak and associate. One of PLF’s earliest Supreme Court cases, Keller v. State Bar of California (1990), vindicated these rights. In California, attorneys are required to belong and pay dues to the state bar. Throughout the 1970s, the bar’s leadership moved further and further left, spending the members’ dues politicking on matters such as gun control, the death penalty, immigration, and a nuclear weapons freeze. Attorneys throughout the state resented subsidizing left-wing causes supported by the bar.
“Nothing goes against the grain of our country’s fundamental values more than compelling people to pay for other people’s ideas.”
— Anthony T. Caso, LEAD COUNSEL IN KELLER
In 1982, PLF attorney Anthony T. Caso represented two dozen attorneys, led by Eddie Keller (later a state court judge), to challenge the bar’s use of mandatory dues for political activity. After eight years of litigation, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the bar could not coerce payment of dues for political or ideological activities that did nothing to further the core purposes of the bar—to regulate the legal profession or improve the quality of legal services available to the people of the state.
To fix things, the Court implemented a procedure originally developed for public employee unions to notify members how their dues were spent and give them an opportunity to object and opt-out of paying for political and ideological programs.
As amicus curiae, PLF has been an important voice in all First Amendment union dues cases since Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977). In those cases, the state grants public employee unions the extraordinary ability to steal money from workers who do not want to be union members or support the union’s political objectives. The Supreme Court permitted this money grab on the theory that all workers must be represented by the union to promote labor peace and prevent free riders.
Since then, at the urging of PLF and our allies, the Court has steadily chipped away at Abood, which was founded on faulty premises and a profoundly unrealistic view of the way public employee unions operate. For example, in Knox v. SEIU (2012), a First Amendment challenge to a public employee union’s mid-year assessment from non-members to oppose a ballot initiative, PLF filed the only brief that urged the Court to junk the “opt-out” procedure as insufficient to protect constitutional rights. In a 7-2 ruling, the Court did just that, requiring the union to obtain affirmative consent from non-members before garnishing their wages.
This term, in Janus v. AFSCME, the Supreme Court will decide whether that rule applies to annual union dues as well. PLF, representing several allied organizations and individuals as amicus curiae, argues that not only should “opt-out” be scrapped but that the core purpose of the union— collective bargaining—is inherently political. For this reason, the state violates the First Amendment by permitting unions to take any amount of money from non-members.
Like every other association in the country, unions will need to learn to offer value to potential members rather than stealing what does not belong to them from those who choose not to associate.
Legal Glossary
Administrative State: the web of bureaucracies that have been allowed to wield legislative, executive, and judicial powers all in one. Agencies like the EPA do not just issue regulations, they also enforce them and act as judge and jury for violators. PLF fights for rigorous judicial review to rein in these agencies and restore the checks and balances established by the Constitution.
Amicus Curiae: a Latin term meaning “friend of the court,” refers to individuals or organizations that file briefs in cases where they have an interest in the issues, but aren’t parties to the litigation. A good amicus brief highlights compelling information or perspectives beyond what the parties have provided.
Clean Water Act: shorthand for a number of interrelated laws, including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and the Water Quality Act of 1987. Notoriously vague, they have been misused as instruments of federal land grabs and other oppressive schemes. PLF’s battles for the victims have led to such landmark U.S. Supreme Court victories as Rapanos, Sackett, Hawkes, and Kent Recycling.
The Commerce Clause: Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive power “to regulate commerce among the states,…” When federal officials overreach—e.g., by imposing regulations that have no credible connection to “interstate commerce” —PLF fights back. Currently, our most high-profile challenge to a Commerce Clause violation is People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, pending before the Supreme Court (see page 11).
GVR (Grant Vacate and Remand): where the Supreme Court grants a petition and, without a hearing, vacates the lower court ruling and returns the case to the lower court. For example, the justices remanded PLF’s Kent Recycling case to the Fifth Circuit with instructions to comply with PLF’s victory in Hawkes.
Petition: a formal written request presented to a court, agency, legislature, or administrative body. PLF routinely files petitions challenging abuses of government authority.
