Oral Arguments at Supreme Court in Friedrichs

January 11, 2016 − by CIR2 − in Case Updates, Friedrichs − Comments Off on Oral Arguments at Supreme Court in Friedrichs

Today at 10:00 am, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Friedrichs v. CTA. The case will decide whether California and twenty-two other states can compel public-employees, like public school teacher Rebecca Friedrichs, to pay union agency fees.

Oral arguments will last for eighty minutes. Extra time was granted beyond the traditional 60 minutes when the Supreme Court allowed the Obama administration to intervene in the arguments on behalf of the Union. CIR will have forty minutes of time to defend Friedrichs’ right to free speech. The other forty minutes will be divided between the parties on the opposing side. California will have fifteen minutes. The union will have fifteen minutes. The Obama Administration will have ten minutes.

What to Look For

In two recent decisions, Harris v. Quin and Knox v. SEIU, Justice Alito has hinted that compelled union dues violate the First Amendment rights of public employees. His opinions were joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Roberts. Justice Scalia, however, has elsewhere suggested that public employees do not have the same free speech rights as other citizens. Because Justice Scalia is widely thought to be the swing vote, commentators will be watching his remarks at oral arguments closely.

Show Your Support for Rebecca 

During oral arguments, a broad coalition of teachers, parents, and school choice and free speech advocates will gather outside the Supreme Court to show their support for Rebecca Friedrichs and her co-plaintiffs. Even if you can’t join them, you can do these five things to show your support for Rebecca on social media.

Watch Rebecca and Her Attorney Discuss the Oral Argument

On Tuesday January 12th, Rebecca and attorney Michael Carvin will speak at the Heritage Foundation and share their perspective on what happened in the courtroom. You can watch them live here.

Click here to view the main case page.

More about this case:



Print Friendly



Comments are closed.