Live blog of opinions | June 27, 2018 (with First Mondays)
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released its final decisions of October Term 2017, in Janus v. AFSCME and Florida v. Georgia. Dan Epps of First Mondays joined us on the live blog.
3rd & 7 37yd
3rd & 7 37yd
B
S
O
close
close

-





-
Procedural question for those who have been there: Why is the time allotted for oral arguments so short relative to the overall case determination? I have seen numerous references on this blog to the idea that some Justices don't like to ask questions because the attorneys already have so little time to speak, but without the prompting of a new line from a Justice, what is an attorney likely to reveal in court that hasn't already been expressed in writing? Wouldn't MORE questions that probe the argument from different angles be the more valuable use of time?
-
Here's the opinion in Janus v. AFSCME. Amy will have our analysis:
-
In reasonably plain English: This is a case about whether government employees who are represented by a union to which they do not belong can be required to pay a fee to cover the costs of collective bargaining. The plaintiff in this case, an Illinois state employee, argued that having to pay the fees violates the First Amendment. Today the Court agreed, ruling for the employee and against the union.
-
This is a big decision. Kagan has strong words. Says decision "will have large-scale consequences. Public employee unions will lose a secure source of financial support. State and local governments that thought fair-share provisions furthered their interests will need to find new ways of managing their workforces."
-
Kagan says there is no good reason to overrule Abood, observing that more "than 20 States have statutory schemes built on the decision," and "reliance interests do not come any stronger." "And likewise, judicial disruption does not get any greater than what the Court does today."
-
Lots of people asking whether this decision is limited to public sector unions. Yes, because the First Amendment only constrains the government. There has been some commentary on how this decision might affect labor markets more generally, but by its terms, it applies only to public sector unions.
-
I believed Katyal when he introduced Gorsuch at his confirmation - something to the effect of not knowing a fairer judge. Does Gorsuch's voting this term stand up to that glowing endorsement? Or do we need to wait for more statistics? Not to mention the one data point yesterday (Katyal's own case...).
-
Can someone explain to me how the liberal wing of the court, that has over the course of history gone out of its way to protect speech, NOW finds it troubling that speech is being protected? Or is it just speech that Kagan/Sotomayor agree with that deserves protection?
-
FINALLY! I'm a teacher and have argued for years that this was needed. Now maybe unions will have to work to...oh...I don't know...actually provide a relevant service to dues payers and EARN the dues instead of forcing dues and directing them to a myriad of political causes!