Mike Carvin, partner in the Firm's
Issues & Appeals Practice, discusses the oral argument he
presented to the U.S. Supreme Court on January 11, 2016. The case
involves 10 teachers who are challenging the regime in California
and 20 other states that says that even if a person is not a member
of a union, he or she can be compelled to give the union money.
Since the union is an advocacy organization with a specific
viewpoint on controversial public issues, Mr. Carvin argued that
this violates the First Amendment because an individual cannot be
compelled to support an organization with which he or she disagrees
or does not wish to subsidize.
The particular issue is that the union dues regime had been upheld
in Abood, a Supreme Court decision from 1977. The Court
agreed to reconsider whether that precedent should be overruled.
Mr. Carvin also discusses the decision in Knox four years
ago, which expressed doubt about the correctness of the analysis in
Abood. The Firm partnered with the Center for Individual
Rights, a public interest group, and came to represent the 10
teachers.
Mr. Carvin describes the oral argument, in which he presented the
position that Abood cannot be squared with basic First
Amendment principles and should be overruled.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.