Gorsuch remains silent as divided Supreme Court argues over unions

WASHINGTON (AP) — While the justices kept the deciding vote quiet, a divided Supreme Court fought Monday over a case that could undermine the financial basis of the unions that represent public workers.

The justices heard arguments in a challenge to an Illinois law that allows unions representing government employees to collect dues from workers who choose not to join.

Amid colorful, sometimes angry comments from his colleagues, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked no questions during the hour-long hearing.

The court was divided 4-4 when it last considered the issue, in 2016, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch joined the court in April and has not yet taken a position on union dues. Labor unions are a big supporter of Democratic candidates and interests. Labor unions strongly opposed President Donald Trump’s nomination of Gorsuch.

Unions say the outcome could affect more than 5 million public workers in 24 states and the District of Columbia.

In many ways, Monday’s arguments were a repeat of what happened in 2016, when the court imposed so-called equitable fees and appeared ready to overturn a 1997 high court ruling that serves as its legal basis. But Scalia’s death left the court tied, and a lower court ruling in favor of fees remained in place.

“Basically, you’re saying we have to get rid of unions,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told William Messenger, an attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Foundation. The group represents Illinois worker Mark Janus in his Supreme Court challenge.

On the other side, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has voted against unions in similar cases, scoffed at the unions’ argument that there is a difference between collective bargaining over wages and employee benefits. government employees and the political activities of unions, to which non-members have no access. sustain.

If unions lose, won’t they have less political influence, Kennedy asked David Frederick, representing the Illinois-affiliated American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Yes, said Frédéric.

“Isn’t this the end of this matter?” Kennedy responded.

Janus says he has a constitutional right not to contribute anything to a union he doesn’t agree with. Janus and the conservative interests that support him claim that everything unions representing public employees do is political, including contract negotiations.

Janus and Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican who has had a contentious relationship with the state’s unions since taking office in 2015, were both in the courtroom Monday. “I am confident that they will side with free speech for the people of our great nation,” Rauner said of the justices after the proceedings.

The Trump administration is supporting Janus in its effort to persuade the court to overturn its 1977 ruling allowing states to charge a fair share of fees for government employees.

Unions argue that so-called fair dues fund collective bargaining and other work that the union does on behalf of all employees, not just its members. More than half of states already have right-to-work laws banning mandatory fees, but most public employee union members are concentrated in states that don’t have them, including California, New York and Illinois.

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said wealthy conservative business interests were behind the legal challenge. “They are attacking us because they see a strong labor movement as a threat to their wealth and power,” Weingarten said.

Union leaders fear not only that workers who do not belong to a union would stop paying their dues, but that some union members would decide to stop paying their dues if they could actually get union representation for free.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that it would be natural for union members to say, “I’d rather keep the money in my own pocket,” which could significantly reduce the union’s revenue.

“I consider this to be a perfectly acceptable outcome,” Messenger said.

The lawyers’ arguments and some of the justices’ comments seemed designed to attract Gorsuch. Frederick, a former law firm colleague, appealed to originalism on behalf of unions, borrowing a typically conservative argument that judges should look at what the Constitution meant when it been written.

Gorsuch spoke of his fidelity to reading the Constitution and laws as they were originally intended.

But Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote two opinions attacking the equitable sharing fees, said Frederick’s argument was “something I thought I would never see in a brief filed by a public employee union.”

Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan have repeatedly emphasized how upsetting it could be if Janus wins, which could please Gorsuch if he hesitates to overturn the 1977 decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.

“Property rights and contract rights, the statutes of many states and the livelihoods of millions of individuals are affected at the same time,” Kagan said. “When have we ever done something like this?”

A decision in the case of Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 16-1466, is expected by the end of June.