Friedrichs v. CTA: Case Timeline

The Hillary Clinton campaign privately argued that “platitudes” would better serve its defense of forced unionism than details about “fees.”

It isn’t unusual for presidential candidates to discuss the actions of the Supreme Court on the campaign trail — hailing some precedents and promising to overturn others. However, in most election years, the campaign rhetoric is just that: empty rhetoric.

A brewing California legislative fight over school discipline highlights the First Amendment violations stemming from mandatory union fees for teachers. At issue is the California Teacher’s Association’s use of member dues and mandatory agency fees from non-members to lobby for school discipline legislation pushed by the Obama administration. Many California teachers oppose the legislation yet are forced to financially support the union’s lobbying for it.

As the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, my political opinions were center-stage this year. Although I’m fighting for the rights of children and educators, union leaders have called me a radical right-winger and a pawn of corporate special interests more times than I can count. Everyone from the unions to the New York Times has tried to write-off my case by painting my political views as outside the mainstream.

On June 28th, after previously splitting 4-4 on the case, the Supreme Court declined a Petition to Rehear Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which involved a First Amendment challenge to laws requiring non-union public employees to pay agency fees to unions. The case is over and for now, agency fees remain in place in 25 states. Like many other First Amendment cases raised in the past few years, this case …