Updated April 19, 2016:

On Jan. 11, 2016,  the U.South. Supreme Court heard arguments in Friedrichs v. the California Teachers Association et al., a closely watched California-based lawsuit with major implications for the state's teachers unions and potentially all public-employee unions. The lawsuit challenged the authority of the CTA and other public-employee unions to collect mandatory fees, a master source of their income and, past extension, their power.  On March 28, 2022 the court issued a split 4-iv ruling on the case.  That left in place the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, providing a win for the CTA.  The carve up ruling means the appeals court'southward decision will not set national precedence, leaving the instance unsettled. The Friedrichs plaintiffs could inquire for the case to be heard when a new justice is appointed to fill the vacancy left past the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

What is Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association?

Friedrichs is a lawsuit brought by x California teachers and a teachers group, Christian Educators Association International, that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear. The plaintiffs want the court to overturn a 4-decades-old court decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education . That ruling said states could crave all employees represented exclusively by a public-employee wedlock to pay "fair-share" or "bureau" fees – an equal portion of the bargaining costs related to wages, benefits and working conditions. Even employees who aren't members must pay these fees, although if the plaintiffs prevail, dues and fees for members and non-members would no longer be mandatory.Dues that wedlock members pay include an additional, voluntary amount that covers the spousal relationship's costs of campaigning for candidates who back the union and lobbying for issues that a majority of members view as important.

Who would it touch?

Half of the states, including California, have adopted laws establishing mandatory "off-white share" or "bureau" fees employees pay to unions. The remaining 25 "right to work" states either prohibit commonage bargaining by public workers or ban mandatory ante. Although the case directly involves the CTA, and, though not a accused, the smaller California Federation of Teachers, a decision could bear on all unions representing public workers, depending how narrowly or broadly the Supreme Courtroom rules.

Who is Friedrichs?

Rebecca Friedrichs is the lead plaintiff, an outspoken opponent of her teachers matrimony who agreed to permit her proper noun become identified with the example. Friedrichs has taught uncomplicated school for 28 years, more often than not in the Savanna School District in Anaheim. You can mind to her discuss the case here, read a Q&A with her here, and read a commentary by her in the Orangish County Register here.

Why is Friedrichs such a big bargain?

A victory by the teachers who filed the suit could significantly sap the financial strength and undermine the bargaining and political clout of the CTA and other public-employee unions by making all union ante voluntary. Unions would have to persuade employees to voluntarily pay hundreds of dollars to a union that is legally obligated to correspond both members and non-members.

Nearly 29,000 teachers – slightly less than 10 percentage of the CTA's members – pay off-white-share fees. If many of the remaining xc per centum of teachers stopped paying dues, the loss would jeopardize CTA's ability to fairly serve its members also as the tens of millions of dollars the CTA and other powerful unions spend campaigning for union-friendly school board members and legislators. Two years after legislators rescinded Wisconsin's mandatory fees statute, in 2011, a third of that state'due south teachers had stopped paying ante.

How much of dues goes to politicking?

For California teachers, about $600 of their boilerplate $ane,000 almanac ante goes toward their off-white-share fees; information technology is divided among their local wedlock, the California Teachers Association and the National Education Association for their expertise and representation. The remaining money pays for lobbying and campaigning at the local, state and federal levels. Public-employee unions have been a key supporter of the Democratic Party in California and nationwide.

Rebecca Friedrichs, lead plaintiff in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.

Courtesy of Greg Schneider (www.gregschneider.com)

Rebecca Friedrichs, lead plaintiff in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Clan.

Who is underwriting the case?

The Center for Individual Rights , a Washington, D.C.-based public interest law business firm whose mission is "the defense of individual liberties  against the increasing ly aggressive and unchecked authority of federal and country governments." Information technology has pursued lawsuits seeking to ban affirmative activeness and racial and gender preferences, including California's Suggestion 209.

What are the arguments for overturning mandatory fees?

Friedrichs and the other plaintiffs argue that bureau fees violate their Outset Amendment rights, because bargaining with the state is no different from lobbying; it'due south all "inherently political." They say that the CTA doesn't stand for their interests on bargaining issues covered by fair-share fees. Therefore, the country shouldn't forcefulness them to financially underwrite a marriage they disagree with. " Whether the spousal relationship is negotiating for specific class sizes or pressing a local government to spend tax dollars on instructor pensions rather than on building parks, the union's negotiating positions embody political choices that are oft controversial," states the Center for Private Rights, which is representing the plaintiffs.

What are the arguments of the defendants, the CTA and the State of California?

They say the court struck the correct balance in Abood, in last that the state as an employer is well served when there is a stable and orderly arrangement to convey the views of workers. Since unions must stand for members and non-members, it's appropriate to require all who benefit from negotiations to share the costs. The loss of coin from "free-riders" – those who benefit without paying – would threaten a wedlock's ability to effectively represent employees.

Unions too fence that they represent the views of the majority and those who disagree have the power to make their views known. The plaintiffs "are but wrong in declaring that it 'does not make a First Amendment deviation' whether speech is function of lobbying the Legislature to enact a law or of negotiating a contract with the public employer," the CTA said in a brief to the Supreme Court.

How do Californians view the issue?

Voters defeated an initiative to turn California into a right-to-work state in 1958, the concluding fourth dimension they voted directly on the issue. Withal, like a seven-year itch, individuals and business groups seeking to reduce the political power of unions accept unsuccessfully funded "paycheck protection" initiatives – in 1998, 2005 and 2012. They would have banned automatic dues deductions for political purposes, and in the 2022 version, prohibited businesses and unions from making any campaign contributions to candidates. Friedrichs would get further past banning mandatory dues deductions for whatever purpose.

Other than overturn Abood, what else might the Court do?

Every fall, California teachers who don't want to join the union must make full out a form stating that; otherwise, the union automatically deducts the full marriage dues from their paychecks. Attorneys for the teachers fence the onus should be on the union to enquire them to belong, and so, as a fallback position, take asked the court to require that unions ask employees to affirmatively opt in every year to pay agency fees, instead of having to opt out of automatic dues collection.

How did lower courts decide?

They didn't, really. Lawyers for the plaintiffs best-selling that their lawsuit hinged on having the Supreme Court reverse its prior Abood decision then asked lower courts to expedite their rulings and then they could chop-chop appeal to the Supreme Courtroom. The federal district and 9 th Circuit Courtroom of Appeal did, without hearing full evidence and oral arguments. California Chaser General Kamala Harris argued the lack of a record showing the teachers were harmed was one reason the Supreme Court should not take taken the case.

To get more reports like this ane, click hither to sign up for EdSource's no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.