ShareThis Page
World

Gorsuch silent as divided Supreme Court spars over unions

| Monday, Feb. 26, 2018, 9:39 a.m.
Supporters of Illinois government employee Mark Janus cheer as he walks to thank them, outside the Supreme Court, Monday, Feb. 26, 2018, in Washington. The Supreme Court takes up a challenge Monday in a case that could deal a painful financial blow to organized labor. The court is considering a challenge to an Illinois law that allows unions representing government employees to collect fees from workers who choose not to join. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
Supporters of Illinois government employee Mark Janus cheer as he walks to thank them, outside the Supreme Court, Monday, Feb. 26, 2018, in Washington. The Supreme Court takes up a challenge Monday in a case that could deal a painful financial blow to organized labor. The court is considering a challenge to an Illinois law that allows unions representing government employees to collect fees from workers who choose not to join. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
In this Oct. 10, 2017, file photo, the Supreme Court in Washington, at sunset. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a case that could deal a painful financial blow to organized labor. All eyes will be on Justice Neil Gorsuch on Monday, Feb. 26, 2018, when the court takes up a challenge to an Illinois law that allows unions representing government employees to collect fees from workers who choose not to join. The unions say the outcome could affect more than 5 million government workers in 24 states and the District of Columbia. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
In this Oct. 10, 2017, file photo, the Supreme Court in Washington, at sunset. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a case that could deal a painful financial blow to organized labor. All eyes will be on Justice Neil Gorsuch on Monday, Feb. 26, 2018, when the court takes up a challenge to an Illinois law that allows unions representing government employees to collect fees from workers who choose not to join. The unions say the outcome could affect more than 5 million government workers in 24 states and the District of Columbia. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

WASHINGTON — With the justice holding the decisive vote silent, a divided Supreme Court sparred Monday over a case that could undermine the financial footing of labor unions that represent government workers.

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

Amid colorful, sometimes angry comments from his colleagues, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked no questions during the hourlong session.

The court split 4-4 the last time it considered the issue in 2016 following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch joined the court in April and has yet to weigh in on union fees. Organized labor is a big supporter of Democratic candidates and interests. Unions strongly opposed Gorsuch's nomination by President Donald Trump.

The unions say the outcome could affect more than 5 million government workers in 24 states and the District of Columbia.

In many respects, Monday's arguments were a replay of what happened in 2016, when the court took up so-called fair share fees and appeared to be ready to overrule a 1997 high court decision that serves as their legal foundation. But Justice Scalia's death just over two years ago left the court tied, leaving a lower court ruling in favor of the fees in place.

“You're basically arguing, do away with unions,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told William Messenger, a lawyer with the National Right to Work Legal Foundation. The group is representing Illinois worker Mark Janus in his Supreme Court challenge.

On the other side, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has voted against unions in past related cases, scoffed at labor's argument that there is a difference between collective bargaining over government employees' pay and benefits, and unions' political activities, which nonmembers do not have to support.

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

“Isn't that the end of this case?” Kennedy replied.

Janus says he has a constitutional right not to contribute anything to a union with which he disagrees. Janus and the conservative interests that back him contend that everything unions representing public employees do is political, including contract negotiations.

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

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

Labor leaders fear that not only would workers who don't belong to a union stop paying fees, but that some union members might decide to stop paying dues if they could in essence get the union's representation for free.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested it would be natural for union members to say “I would rather keep the money in my own pocket,” potentially seriously cutting union revenues.

“I submit that's a perfectly acceptable result,” Messenger said.

A decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 16-1466, is expected by late June.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me