Gorsuch Silent as Divided Supreme Court Spars over Unions

February 26, 2018 06:05 PM

With the justice holding the decisive vote silent, a divided Supreme Court sparred Monday over a case that could undermine the financial footing of labor unions that represent government workers.

The justices heard arguments in a challenge to an Illinois law that allows unions representing government employees to collect fees from workers who choose not to join.

Advertisement

Amid colorful, sometimes angry comments from his colleagues, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked no questions during the hour-long session.

The court split 4-4 the last time it considered the issue in 2016 following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch joined the court in April and has yet to weigh in on union fees. Organized labor is a big supporter of Democratic candidates and interests. Unions strongly opposed Gorsuch's nomination by President Donald Trump.

RELATED: New Year to be a Challenge for Republicans in Congress

The unions say the outcome could affect more than five million government workers in 24 states and the District of Columbia.

In many respects, Monday's arguments were a replay of what happened in 2016, when the court took up so-called fair share fees and appeared to be ready to overrule a 1997 high court decision that serves as their legal foundation. But Justice Scalia's death just over two years ago left the court tied, leaving a lower court ruling in favor of the fees in place.

"You're basically arguing, do away with unions," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told William Messenger, a lawyer with the National Right to Work Legal Foundation. The group is representing Illinois worker Mark Janus in his Supreme Court challenge.

On the other side, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has voted against unions in past related cases, scoffed at labor's argument that there is a difference between collective bargaining over government employees' pay and benefits, and unions' political activities, which nonmembers do not have to support.

The conservative "Center of the American Experiment" based in Minnesota filed a legal brief supporting Janus in this case.

"This is a freedom issue," Hinderaker told 5 Eyewitness News on Monday. "They say we should have the freedom to join a union. We should have the freedom not to join a union."

Several Minnesota public sector unions held a news conference Monday to highlight how a ruling against them could hurt millions of public workers by reducing resources used for collective bargaining.

"We're using our collective power to narrow the wealth disparities in our country by reigning in the masters of the economy who have rigged it all against us," said Denise Specht, president of the teachers union Education Minnesota.

If the unions lose, won't they have less political influence, Justice Kennedy asked David Frederick, representing the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Illinois affiliate. Yes, Frederick said.

"Isn't that the end of this case?" Kennedy replied.

Janus says he has a constitutional right not to contribute anything to a union with which he disagrees. Janus and the conservative interests that back him contend that everything unions representing public employees do is political, including contract negotiations.

The Trump administration is supporting Janus in his effort to persuade the court to overturn its 1977 ruling allowing states to require fair share fees for government employees.

The unions argue that so-called fair share fees pay for collective bargaining and other work the union does on behalf of all employees, not just its members. More than half the states already have right-to-work laws banning mandatory fees, but most members of public-employee unions are concentrated in states that don't, including California, New York, and Illinois.

Labor leaders fear that not only would workers who don't belong to a union stop paying fees, but that some union members might decide to stop paying dues if they could in essence get the union's representation for free.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested it would be natural for union members to say "I would rather keep the money in my own pocket," potentially seriously cutting union revenues.

"I submit that's a perfectly acceptable result," Messenger said.

A decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 16-1466, is expected by late June.

Credits

The Associated Press

(Copyright 2018 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Advertisement

Brooklyn Park 11-Year-Old Missing Since Early Monday, Children Taken into Protective Custody

Vikings to Induct Former Coach Dennis Green in Ring of Honor

PGA Tour Stop Planned in Minnesota

On-and-Off Showers Monday in the Twin Cities

New Configuration in Place Along I-35W, I-94 Work Delayed

State Patrol Investigating I-694 Crash that Injured 1-Year-Old, 26-Year-Old

Advertisement