Last year’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME (2018) is properly seen as a landmark ruling in the area of compelled speech (e.g., here and here), but it is more than that. By overruling Abood v. Detroit Board of Education(1977), the Supreme Court in Janus acknowledged that its extension of private-sector labor law precedents concerning union-security clauses to the public sector was erroneous. I have previously written about “the road to Abood” (here and here), and explained why the Court’s poorly-reasoned decisions under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) should not govern arrangements involving government employees. Justice Alito, who authored Janus and the decisions leading up to it, scathingly dissected the Court’s NLRA precedents, most of which were issued during the heyday of the Warren Court.
AUSTIN – Compelling Lone Star attorneys to pay dues to the State Bar of Texas in order to fund “diversity” initiatives and legislative programs violates their First Amendment rights, according to a recently filed lawsuit.
That expression is figuratively true when applied to life in general, insofar as we all have to make an effort, accept sacrifices, face setbacks, and overcome obstacles to get ahead in this world.
AUSTIN – Another line in the sand has been drawn, as the Texas Public Policy Foundation recently asked Attorney General Ken Paxton to affirm that the use of mandatory State Bar dues for political advocacy is unconstitutional.
AUSTIN – A former Texas Bar president is asking the current to withdraw an opinion request made to Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has been called upon to determine if 76,000 “senior” lawyers around the state have the right to vote on the election of Texas Young Lawyers Association officials.
BEAUMONT – Should approximately 76,000, due-paying attorneys have the right to vote on the election of Texas Young Lawyers Association officials – that’s the question State Bar President Joe Longley is asking Attorney General Ken Paxton to answer.
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument today [February 26] in one of the term’s most important—and highly publicized—cases, Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31. As many readers are aware, the case involves the constitutionality of “agency shop” arrangements in public sector collective bargaining agreements, which compel non-member employees to make payments in lieu of union dues as a condition of their employment. Agency shop clauses are commonly used in public-sector labor contracts, enabling powerful unions representing teachers and other government employees to collect large sums of money from workers who never consented to such exactions (and who, for that matter, never voted in favor of union representation).
