CIR Attorney Brian Miller spoke with Watchdog.org on why Friedrichs was such an important case and what the future holds:
“There are several cases that raise some of the same constitutional claims, along with other more factually complex claims involving state law or the 14th Amendment,” said Miller. “Most are in the district court level and will require several years for discovery and trials. The Friedrichs case was unique in raising a straightforward First Amendment claim.”
“Friedrichs is part of a larger dispute about the First Amendment,” Miller explained. “The unions and their supporters contend that the First Amendment only protects thought — it does not protect an individual’s right to decide whether to financially support the expression of thought. Unions say that Rebecca Friedrichs can be forced to pay union dues because she is still free to think the union is wrong. Friedrichs challenges the idea that the First Amendment only protects the freedom to think but does not protect the means of public expression.”
Read the full exchange at Watchdog.org.