• About
  • Contact
  • Staff

Law & Liberty

A Project of Liberty Fund

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Liberty Law Forum
  • Podcasts
  • Book Reviews

January 6, 2014|Abood v. Detroit Board of Ed., First Amendment, Free-riding, Harris v. Quinn, Illinois, John McGinnis, Knox v. SEIU, Labor Unions, Labor-and-Speech, Medicaid, SEIU, Supreme Court, Union Fees

The Government is Us. Let’s Unionize!

by Michael S. Greve|1 Comment

Happy New Year, and all cheer the arrival of the one and only John McGinnis on this excellent site! His contributions will make it excellenter still.

Rummaging around on the Supremes’ docket and among briefs and petitions, I’ve come across Harris v. Quinn. The question is whether it’s okay for a state (Illinois) to authorize unionization, complete with mandatory union fees, for home health care workers who provide in-home care to individual patients under Medicaid-financed programs. Abood v. Detroit Board of Ed. (1977) held that public employers have a “compelling interest” in labor peace and in preventing free-riding by employees. (However, compulsory union dues must be for collective bargaining purposes and may not be put to ideological or political uses.) So: are home care providers public “employees”? Sure, said the Seventh Circuit: they are (1) paid by the state, which (2) defines what services will be reimbursed and (3) determines who will be paid. The providers work at private homes and are actually employed by the patient; but the state is at least a “joint employer,” and so Abood applies.

The losing parties, dissident home care providers who protest the compelled association, asked for cert. The Supreme Court CVSG’d the case. The SG urged denial:

nothing here to see but a boring labor law question and a plainly correct appellate decision. The Court ignored the recommendation and granted cert.

Even in that posture, Harris was a bit of an under-reported sleeper case. What’s at issue here is an aggressive, carefully orchestrated SEIU campaign to organize vast swaths of the private workforce. And note the amazing breadth of the Seventh Circuit’s (1),(2), (3) test: it captures anybody who provides services for government money—child care, Medicaid and Medicare, foster care, child care, you name it. Even government contractors meet the test. (Needless to say, the state and union respondents defend an even broader definition.) Reversal by the Supreme Court would thwart the entire campaign to unionize the vast government contractor universe.

The merits briefs, though, suggest an even bigger story: the petitioners ask point blank that Abood should be overruled. That’s huge. What happened?

Two things. One, after the cert grant, new co-counsel came on board—a team from Hogan Lovells (the Chief’s old firm) that includes, remarkably and good for him, Neal Kumar Katyal (General Verrilli’s predecessor at the SG’s office). And two, the Supreme Court decided Knox v. SEIU. In the course dealing with (“Hudson”) notice and opt-out requirements for political union expenditures in a closed-shop context, Justice Alito’s opinion for the Court flagged serious concerns over the Court’s labor-and-compelled speech cases. “We do not revisit today whether the Court’s former cases have given adequate recognition to the critical First Amendment rights at stake” in a union context, Justice Alito signaled (emphasis added). “Free-rider arguments … are generally insufficient to overcome First Amendment objections,” and the Court’s acceptance of such arguments in the union context are an “anomaly.” The Court’s “prior decisions approach, if they do not cross, the limit of what the First Amendment can tolerate.” Uh-oh.

Predictably, the petitioners’ merits brief in Harris picks up those hints. But it does much more: consistent with a thought I’ve suggested here, the brief, in an impressive tour-de-force through the morass of labor-and-speech jurisprudence, explains how and why the labor cases are indeed an anomaly from the rest of the Court’s compelled speech jurisprudence; and why the time has come to put those cases, starting with Abood, out of their misery. If Abood isn’t overruled outright, petitioners continue, it should at least be stripped of its “labor peace” rationale (which is a Commerce Clause rationale for labor regulation, not a “compelling government interest” that trumps free speech concerns). And if not that, Abood should at least be limited to people who are actually employees, not contractors-turned-lobbyists. All told, an admirable piece of work.

The government’s brief in support of the state and union respondent is also a piece of work, but not in a good way. It’s a full-throated embrace of the SEIU’s position and campaign. (What else do you expect, Greve? Umh, perhaps some recognition of the fact that the federal government, through Medicaid, will pay for most of whatever the SEIU manages to obtain for its new members? Maybe some concern for the public fisc? No such luck, though.) Along the way, the brief makes the ostentatiously “originalist” point that until the 1950s, public employees weren’t thought to have any First Amendment rights: public employment was deemed a “privilege” that government could offer on any terms, including conditions that, if imposed directly, would violate the Constitution. True, but what of it? We should return to that arrangement? No, says the government. Then why raise an “originalist” point you’re not willing to stick with—to pick up a vote? Whose? Who thinks of this stuff?

The government also suggests that the Abood issue wasn’t fairly encompassed by the cert petition and the scope of the cert grant. But the government doesn’t make much of this suggestion: to the extent that the objection is plausible, it was also true in Knox, except way more so. The justices can easily reach the issue and overrule Abood. That would be big and good news indeed.

Oral argument is scheduled for January 21. I’ll have more then.

Michael S. Greve

Michael S. Greve is a professor at George Mason University School of Law. From 2000 to August, 2012, Professor Greve was the John G. Searle Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, where he remains a visiting scholar. His most recent book is The Upside-Down Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2012).

About the Author

Why the Federalist Society Matters
My New Paper on the Recess Appointments Clause

Recent Popular Posts

  • Popular
  • Today Week Month All
  • Immigration Cases Make Strange Bedfellows. But Is It a Long-Term Relationship? April 26, 2018
  • Making Our Universities a Source of Universal Knowledge April 26, 2018
  • Kubrick’s Odyssey at 50 April 26, 2018
  • The Successes and Failure of John Quincy Adams September 18, 2014
  • Moneyball Illustrates Efficient Markets, Not Behavioral Economics April 26, 2018
Ajax spinner

Related Posts

Related

Comments

  1. gabe says

    January 6, 2014 at 4:18 pm

    Michael:

    “The question is whether it’s okay for a state (Illinois) to authorize unionization, complete with mandatory union fees, for home health care workers who provide in-home care to individual patients under Medicaid-financed programs.”

    Aren’t you being a little generous here by calling it “authorizing” – in fact, they are compelling these “employees” to undergo “induction” (yes, almost like the old days when you would receive a nice letter from the President and the local draft board) into the union and, of course, (we would not want to overlook this) pay union dues. In the state of Washington the dues were going to be automatically deducted from the payments made by the State to the “employee” provider – sometimes known as the adult child of the elder in need of care.
    God, what a racket.

    Ummm? since the Seahawks stadium was partly financed with State monies, I wonder if, as a season ticket holder, I will soon be compelled to join a sports fan union organized under the auspices of SEIU? after all, being a fan does take a lot of work.

    take care
    gabe

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Book Reviews

The Ford Restoration

by Kirk Emmert

Occupying the White House in unfavorable circumstances can make a President fall back on his best friend: the U.S. Constitution.

Read More

John C. Calhoun, Madisonian Manqué

by Thomas W. Merrill

His institutional innovations were geared toward preserving slavery.

Read More

Podcasts

The Solid Ground of Mere Civility: A Conversation with Teresa Bejan

A discussion with Teresa M. Bejan

Teresa Bejan discusses with us how early modern debates over religious toleration are an example of how we can disagree well.

Read More

Leading a Worthy Life in a Scattered Time: A Conversation with Leon Kass

A discussion with Leon Kass

Leon Kass discusses Leading a Worthy Life.

Read More

Eric Voegelin Studies: A Conversation with Charles Embry

A discussion with Charles Embry

What did “Don’t immanentize the eschaton!” really mean? An intro podcast on the formidable mind of Eric Voegelin.

Read More

Republican Virtue, Interrupted: A Conversation with Frank Buckley

A discussion with F.H. Buckley

The real conflict in our politics centers on reforming massive levels of public corruption.

Read More

Recent Posts

  • Kubrick’s Odyssey at 50

    The movie that inserted existentialism into our understanding of science fiction on screen.
    by Titus Techera

  • Immigration Cases Make Strange Bedfellows. But Is It a Long-Term Relationship?

    Dimaya v. Sessions is a milestone simply because the Court struck down a provision of immigration law, but it has wider implications.
    by Michael Kagan

  • Making Our Universities a Source of Universal Knowledge

    The distance between the humanities and sciences has grown wider since C.P. Snow discussed it six decades ago in "The Two Cultures." We need both.
    by John O. McGinnis

  • Moneyball Illustrates Efficient Markets, Not Behavioral Economics

    Many have the story of Moneyball wrong: it's not a story of systematic error but one of eliminating systematic error in a market.
    by James R. Rogers

  • Academic Freedom Won’t Survive Carnival Act Universities

    Public institutions of supposedly liberal learning, which are increasingly alienating mainstream Americans, have no entitlement to public support.
    by Greg Weiner

Blogroll

  • Acton PowerBlog
  • Cafe Hayek
  • Cato@Liberty
  • Claremont
  • Congress Shall Make No Law
  • EconLog
  • Fed Soc Blog
  • First Things
  • Hoover
  • ISI First Principles Journal
  • Legal Theory Blog
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Pacific Legal Liberty Blog
  • Point of Law
  • Power Line
  • Professor Bainbridge
  • Ricochet
  • Right Reason
  • Spengler
  • The American
  • The Beacon Blog
  • The Foundry
  • The Originalism Blog
  • The Public Discourse
  • University Bookman
  • Via Meadia
  • Volokh

Archives

  • All Posts & Publications
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Forum
  • Liberty Law Blog
  • Liberty Law Talk

About

Law and Liberty’s focus is on the content, status, and development of law in the context of republican and limited government and the ways that liberty and law and law and liberty mutually reinforce the other. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law and Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal philosophy, and pedagogy.

  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Contact
  • Archive

Apple App Store
Google Play Store

© 2018 Liberty Fund, Inc.

Subscribe
Get Law and Liberty's latest content delivered to you daily
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
No thanks