The Economist Examines Will Baude's Brief for Janus SCOTUS Case
Will the Supreme Court deal a blow to trade unions?
Start with the argument from Eugene Volokh and William Baude, conservative law professors from UCLA and the University of Chicago. These scholars believe Abood was wrongly decided—but for different reasons than those pushed by the fees’ challengers. Whereas Mark Janus, a municipal employee in Illinois, says he should not be forced to pay to support collective bargaining, as it is just as “political” as campaigning, Messrs Volokh and Baude say none of these dues qualify as protected speech. “Where Abood truly went wrong”, they write, “was not in how it applied the new First Amendment objection it recognised. Rather, Abood erred by recognising that objection in the first place.”
Compelling payments is quite common, Messrs Volokh and Baude observe, and usually raises no First Amendment worries. “The government collects and spends tax dollars, doles out grants and subsidies to private organisations that engage in speech, and even requires private parties to pay other private parties for speech-related services—like, for example, legal representation.” These forced payments must satisfy constitutional norms including religious liberty and equal protection, but freedom of speech is neither here nor there: “a compelled subsidy does not itself burden a free-standing First Amendment interest in freedom of speech or association.”
Read more at The Economist