Sidestepping a major defeat for public employee unions, a deadlocked U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to topple organized labor’s ability to collect dues from government workers who oppose paying fees to cover collective bargaining costs.
In a one-line order, the Supreme Court handed down a 4-4 ruling that effectively let stand lower court decisions backing the California Teachers Association in the closely-watched case. The outcome may have been heavily influenced by the recent death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who many legal experts predicted was inclined to rule against the public employee unions in a case that was considered a key test for the diminishing clout of organized labor.
The case centered on an effort by some teachers to essentially defect from the California Teachers Association without having to pay a state-mandated fee to their state and local unions. California is one of 23 states that require such “fair share” fees for public employee unions, even if the public sector worker does not belong to the collective bargaining unit.
For now, that system has survived its most serious legal challenge in decades. Union supporters, including California Attorney General Kamala Harris, praised the result, but braced for further fights.
“By upholding current law, the Supreme Court rejected a political ploy by the wealthy corporate special interests backing this case to make it harder for working families and the middle class to come together, speak up for each other and get ahead,” said CTA president Eric Heins, a Pittsburg schoolteacher.
Rebecca Friedrichs, an Anaheim school teacher, led the legal assault on the public employee unions, backed by conservative organizations that have politically attacked organized labor. The Center for Individual Rights vowed to ask the Supreme Court to rehear the case once Scalia’s successor is confirmed, saying there is “ongoing doubt” about the “forcible collection” of union dues.
“With the death of Justice Scalia, this outcome was not unexpected,” said Terry Pell, the president of the Center for Individual Rights, the public interest law firm that brought the case on behalf of the teachers. “We believe this case is too significant to let a split decision stand and we will file a petition for re-hearing with the Supreme Court.”
The decision may provide further fuel to the political standoff over President Barack Obama’s recent nomination of federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland to fill Scalia’s seat. Republicans have vowed to block the nomination in a presidential election year, drawing fire from Democrats who argue the Supreme Court needs its full roster of justices and should not be politicized.
The legal fight over public employee unions was the type of hotly contested case that can splinter the Supreme Court, which now is divided equally between liberals and conservatives. The justices could have put off the school union case until next term, but instead left the lower court ruling intact — leaving no Supreme Court precedent and therefore opening the door for another challenge down the line.
“I anticipate we’ll see at least a few more of these (tie votes this term),” said Bradley Joondeph, a Santa Clara University law professor and former law clerk for retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
The California clash was considered a crucial showdown for organized labor at a time when public employee unions are under political attack in states such as Wisconsin and New Jersey. California teachers who support their union’s political influence have been clearly worried about the outcome in the Supreme Court, where a number of conservative justices, including Scalia, in recent years expressed doubt about allowing states to require fees from reluctant nonunion members.
“I think that unions are incredibly important for public education,” said Lynne Formigli, who teaches sixth-grade science at Cabrillo Middle School in Santa Clara. “What Friedrichs is trying to do is basically destroy our unions and prevent our ability to advocate on behalf of our kids.”
Critics of the status quo say the case boiled down to unions milking their members to advance the political causes of organized labor, regardless of whether members, in this case public school teachers, agree with the CTA’s positions.
Public employees who do not enlist in their unions already are protected from being forced to pay for overtly political activity, such as lobbying on particular issues, backing political candidates or general union organizing. But since a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, California and other states have been allowed to collect the “fair share” fees from nonunion members to effectively cover the cost of collective bargaining efforts that shape pay, benefits and working conditions.
In California, teachers who choose not to belong to the union get a refund of about $350 to $400 of the roughly $1,000 state and local union dues to return the estimated cost of political activity, according to court papers. The stakes for California public unions and those in other states could be hundreds of millions of dollars a year siphoned from labor’s coffers if non-union members do not have to pay anything — one reason 21 states and a host of labor groups have backed the CTA in the Supreme Court.
The unions argue that nonunion members should not get a “free ride” from the CTA’s collective bargaining efforts.
But the other side counters that such fee requirements trample on the free speech rights of teachers who disagree with union positions — they say pushing in collective bargaining for more money and power for teachers from state and local government is inherently political. So the anti-union groups asked the Supreme Court to overturn its own 1977 precedent in the case, which arose from a challenge involving Detroit area schools.
Staff writer Sharon Noguchi contributed to this report. Howard Mintz covers legal affairs. Contact him at 408-286-0236 or follow him at Twitter.com/hmintz
