In the ongoing American saga of workers, unions, and government, the Supreme Court reversed a four-decade-old opinion which puts the power of choice back in the hands of the individual citizen. 

The process started with a new case brought by Mark Janus, a child support specialist who works for the state of Illinois. Janus sued his union, stating he did not agree with their positions and therefore should not be forced to pay their union fees.

Utah joined 18 other states in support of Janus and urged the court to overturn the 1977 decision in order to protect the First Amendment rights of the individual. You can read our brief here. 

The Supreme Court overturned their 1977 decision which stated that while it was illegal for unions to force members to pay for their political activities, it was fair to collect fees for collective bargaining and administrative fees.  

In this year’s case? The worker won. 

The Supreme Court’s new ruling strikes down an Illinois law requiring union non-members to pay fees for the collective bargaining process, matters affecting wages and contracts, as well as negotiating conditions and hours of employment. The Court stated the distinction in the 1977 case between a union’s political spending and other activities is unsustainable and unworkable. It has led to practical problems and is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases protecting free speech. 

Find more on the SCOTUSblog.

You’ll remember that Utah had a local version of this issue many years ago (here and here), which also went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The State of Utah led seven other states saying then, as it did in Janus, that an individual’s free speech rights were at stake.  In case you’re interested, here is a copy of our 2009 brief (PDF).

All of this paints an interesting backdrop for today’s discussion about the White House and federal employee unions.

Thanks for paying attention. 

Photo by Sebastian Pichler

In the Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission decision last week, the Supreme Court of the United States held by a vote of 7-2 that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s administrative law judges are “inferior officers of the United States” for purposes of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Utah and thirteen of our sister states filed an amicus brief urging the Court to reach that very decision due to important federalism concerns.

Bottom line: 

Because of this decision, states will be better able to hold our federal representatives accountable for the types of persons they install to make decisions affecting a broad array of state interests.

Why is this important?

Inferior officers of the United States exercise significant federal power. For example, the SEC’s ALJs have power to conduct trials, take evidence, and issue decisions affecting people’s ability to practice their profession and earn a living. The Appointments Clause allows States and other interested parties to hold the President and the Senate politically accountable for the types of persons they install to perform those important federal functions.

Lucia does not directly affect the States, since the States do not appear as parties in SEC adjudications. But Lucia has significant implications for other federal ALJs before whom States appear, such as ALJs in the Department of Interior. Lucia clarifies that if ALJs at DOI perform functions similar to the SEC’s ALJs, they too must accede to their offices in accordance with the Appointments Clause’s mandates. 

You can read Utah’s Amici Brief here, and find the entire U.S. Supreme Court opinion here. 

More on SCOTUSblog. 

Shout out to Utah’s Solicitor General, who led out and wrote the brief.