On Thursday, September 28th, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Janus v. AFSCME, a case challenging compulsory union dues. If Janus is successful, the Court could restore teacher’s First Amendment rights and declare compulsory dues unconstitutional in all fifty states by next June.
Watch as Ryan Yohn explains what inspired him to become a teacher, his love of the profession, and why he decided to stand up for the right of teachers to decide for themselves whether or not to support a union. Watch and share his story.
On June 6th, Mark Janus filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear his case, Janus v. AFSCME. Janus’ case seeks to end compulsory union dues. His case is based on the same free speech argument that the Center for Individual Rights successfully brought to the Supreme Court in
Judge Douglas Woodlock of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts recently asked CIR to file a Motion for Summary Judgment in our case against Massachusetts’s stun-gun ban. CIR jumped at the opportunity and filed the Motion and a detailed Memorandum on May 17th, asking the court to declare the ban
On June 1st, Judge Josephine L. Staton of the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California denied CIR’s motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Yohn v. CTA. Because the plaintiffs’ claims are foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent allowing unions to impose compulsory dues on non-union members, CIR’s
The Center for Individual Rights reached a settlement with the Attorney General of California this week that guarantees the Attorney General will not use California Code section 8195 to stifle legitimate First Amendment speech. The state of California previously attempted to use section 8195 to ban artist Timothy Desmond from
On April 27th, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey filed a response to the Center for Individual Rights’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Attorney General Healey argues that the law should not be suspended until a decision is reached on the merits for the following reasons: First, she argues that because
Yesterday the Center for Individual Rights filed a motion for preliminary injunction in the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts that asks the court to suspend Massachusetts’s ban on electric weapons as our case proceeds.
The motion asks Federal Judge Douglas Woodlock to bar Massachusetts authorities from enforcing the
On March 8th, Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood of the District Court of Guam issued a decision in favor of CIR client Arnold Davis. Judge Tydingco-Gatewood’s opinion granted Davis’ Motion for Summary Judgment and held Guam’s race exclusive plebiscite unconstitutional in light of the Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the Constitution.
CIR recently filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in our case against compulsory union dues. Since this case questions precedents previously set by the Supreme Court, and the district court does not have the authority to deviate
The Center for Individual Rights is a nonprofit public interest law firm that defends individual rights, with particular emphasis on civil rights and free speech. CIR provides free legal representation to deserving clients whose individual rights are threatened.