The Center for Individual Rights

April 11, 2018

CIR Plaintiffs Support Mark Janus at Supreme Court Rally

Ryan Yohn speaks at Supreme Court. Ryan Yohn speaks at Supreme Court. Bruce Aster speaks to ABC news outside Supreme Court. Bruce Aster speaks to ABC news outside Supreme Court. Bruce Aster speaks at Supreme Court. Bruce Aster speaks at Supreme Court. Darren Miller speaks at Supreme Court. Darren Miller speaks at Supreme Court. Bruce Aster and Ryan Yohn at Supreme Court. Mark Janus with reporters after oral arguments. Ryan Yohn interviewing with the Daily Signal at the Supreme Court. Bruce Aster rallies at the Supreme Court for Mark Janus.

On Monday, February 26th, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME. While attorneys argued inside the Court, CIR plaintiffs Ryan Yohn, Bruce Aster, and Darren Miller all traveled to Washington, D.C. to speak at a rally at the Supreme Court and support Mark Janus. The three plaintiffs each spoke about why they oppose compelled union dues and support worker freedom.

May 15, 2018 by CIR2 in Case Updates

May 15, 2018

CIR Files Supreme Court Brief for California Farmworker

The Supreme Court is currently considering Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, a First Amendment challenge to public employee compulsory agency fees. Compelled unionism could soon be before the Supreme Court once again. Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, cert. petition pending (No. 17-1375) (Mar. 28, 2018), takes compelled association beyond Janus, by challenging state-imposed private contracts on workers and their ...

April 18, 2018 by CIR2 in Case Updates

April 18, 2018

Massachusetts Stun Gun Ban Finally Declared Unconstitutional

After facing attacks on nearly every front, the Massachusetts law banning stun guns and other electric weapons has finally been declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cast constitutional shade on the law in 2016’s Caetano v. Massachusetts. In light of that decision, the law has come under increasing scrutiny. CIR filed Martel v. Healey in federal court seeking to have the law declared unconstitutional in violation of the Second Amendment. And ...

April 30, 2018 by CIR2 in Case Updates

April 30, 2018

In Supreme Court Class Action Case, Free Speech Hangs In The Balance

On April 30th, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Frank v. Gaos, a case in which CIR filed a supporting brief. The case challenges a well-known abuse of plaintiff class action settlements known as cy pres awards in which 100% of settlement awards are given to attorneys and third party charities. In an amicus brief, CIR’s urged the Supreme Court to review the case, arguing that cy pres awards violate ...

April 13, 2018 by CIR in Case Updates

April 13, 2018

Guam Inexplicably Delays Appeal

Locked in an appeal fight with CIR and Lead Counsel Gibson Dunn, the Government of Guam recently inexplicably declined an offer from the Ninth Circuit to expedite consideration of its appeal. CIR is challenging Guam’s plan to hold a race-exclusive plebiscite in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments. After the Federal District Court of Guam ruled in favor of CIR’s client Dave Davis, Guam appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The ...

CIR in the News

May 02, 2018

Law.com

Why SCOTUS Picked Google Settlement to Test Cy Pres.

It’s a big win for Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who petitioned the Supreme Court to review the deal because it directed $5.3 million in unclaimed funds under the cy pres doctrineto third parties, including the alma maters of some of the plaintiffs lawyers, but provided no money to the class.

(Case: Frank v. Gaos)
April 30, 2018

Wall Street Journal

Supreme Court Will Take a Closer Look at Class Actions

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court is expanding its scrutiny of class actions, announcing Monday it would hear appeals in two separate cases from California that could curb remedies for alleged small harms that corporations caused for large numbers of individuals.

(Case: Frank v. Gaos)
March 19, 2018

The Hill

Agency fees are 100 percent political — and unions know it

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, a case involving “agency fees” that unions impose on workers who aren’t members to cover union activities with the exception of political action. Since the oral arguments took place, most news outlets, court watchers and even most union leaders have predicted that the court will side with Mark Janus, a public employee in Illinois who is required by state law …

(Case: Yohn v. California Teachers Association)
March 19, 2018

Real Clear Policy

Does Requiring Union Dues Raise Worker Well Being?

The United States Supreme court is poised to decide in Janus v. AFSCME on the constitutionality of requiring “agency fees” be paid to public-sector unions by nonunion members.

(Case: Yohn v. California Teachers Association)
March 08, 2018

Daily Signal

Union ‘Opt-Out’ Measures Could Dilute Supreme Court Ruling, Teachers Worry

Government workers who don’t want to join unions should be able to “opt in” rather than “opt out” of union fees that finance political activism, some California teachers argue.

(Case: Yohn v. California Teachers Association)
February 27, 2018

Forbes

What Happened At The Supreme Court Arguments In Janus v AFSCME

Yesterday, in Janus v. AFSCME, the Supreme Court was urged to overturn the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and end compulsory union dues for public employees. The very same issue was argued before the Supreme Court just two years ago in Friedrichs v. CTA, but when Justice Scalia died shortly after oral arguments, that case was left unresolved. Hopefully, with Janus, the Court will decide the …

(Case: Yohn v. California Teachers Association)
February 27, 2018

Education Week

The Next Court Case Against Teachers’ Unions Attacks Opt-Out Rules

The day after the U.S. Supreme Court justices heard arguments for and against compulsory union fees for nonmembers, three teachers gathered downtown to discuss the next big case that could potentially hammer teachers’ unions: Yohn v. California Teachers Association.

(Case: The Next Court Case Against Teachers’ Unions Attacks Opt-Out Rules)
February 27, 2018

Washington Examiner

Unions likely to face another Supreme Court challenge after Janus

The Supreme Court’s Janus case isn’t the only challenge to public sector labor law that the justices may take up this year. A related case, Yohn v. California Teachers Association, is still pending, and its advocates said Tuesday they will likely continue to push it regardless of the justices’ ultimate decision in Janus.

(Case: Yohn v. California Teachers Association)
February 26, 2018

ABC News

Fate of public unions may rest with Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Monday seemed poised to overturn a 41-year old ruling that requires some government workers to pay certain fees even if they’re not union members, in a case that could hurt the political power of public employee unions.

(Case: Yohn v. California Teachers Association)
February 26, 2018

Education Week

Demonstrators, Including Educators, Turn Out as High Court Hears Union-Fees Case

As the U.S. Supreme Court justices heard arguments Monday in a case over public-employee unions collecting fees from nonmembers, hundreds of demonstrators on both sides of the issue gathered outside the building, waving signs and chanting competing messages.

The case was brought by Mark Janus, a child-support specialist in Illinois who charges that he shouldn’t be forced to pay fees to a union—the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees …

(Case: Yohn v. California Teachers Association)

CIR on Facebook