Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association was a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether public employees who decline to join a labor union may nonetheless be required to pay union dues. The case was brought by Rebecca Friedrichs, a teacher, against the California Teachers Association, with representation from Terry Pell of the Center for Individual Rights. The litigation was profoundly affected by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
The issue
The question in Friedrichs, as described by Professor Gail Heriot, was whether a person who declines to join a labor union must nevertheless pay union dues on the theory that the person benefits from the collective bargaining the union performs, or whether the First Amendment protects the person from that requirement. Heriot framed the issue as whether forcing non-members to pay dues to the union is essentially a violation of their First Amendment rights Gail Heriot on the Significance of Justice Scalia’s Passing (2016).
Bob Zadek described the case as a teachers union case. He asked what the effect on American life would be if the Court ruled 5–4 with Scalia on the bench. Heriot said the effect would be very profound: people who were not union members would no longer be putting money into union coffers, and many people who were union members might decide they did not need to be members after all and would rather keep the money. Zadek suggested that many rational people believed such a ruling would be the death knell of the power that public service unions have over the political process, calling it a life-changing event. Heriot agreed that this was how people were putting it and said it would be very profound, though how profound was hard to say, since people have joined unions even when they did not need to in other situations. She said a lot of people would opt out of the union, making the decision extremely important for labor unions Gail Heriot on the Significance of Justice Scalia’s Passing (2016).
Oral argument and the expected vote
At oral argument, according to Heriot, everybody seemed to agree the decision would be 5–4 and that Scalia would be in the majority holding that unions are not entitled to money from people who do not want to be members Gail Heriot on the Significance of Justice Scalia’s Passing (2016).
Scalia’s death and the 4–4 vote
After Scalia’s death, Zadek noted that although the vote would be 4–4, which basically affirms the decision of the lower court, a 4–4 vote without an opinion does not create any precedent. Heriot confirmed that a 4–4 vote has no precedential value. She said that if the Court wanted to make something with precedential value, it could wait and order reargument, but her guess was that in most of these cases it would not. She said the case would almost certainly be 4–4 Gail Heriot on the Significance of Justice Scalia’s Passing (2016).
The plaintiff’s account
Rebecca Friedrichs, the plaintiff, described the situation among teachers. She said that it was not a popular stance to be a fee payer, and that fee payers are shunned and bullied if they dare to become fee payers, because they are not paying for the union’s overt politics and are picked on by union leadership within their district A Teacher’s Brave Stand Against Her Union – Rebecca Friedrichs and Terry Pell (2017).
Zadek asked why only 10% of teachers were protective of their free speech rights, referencing Terry Pell’s estimate that about 10% of teachers in the union were agency fee payers rather than dues payers. Friedrichs said teachers do value their First Amendment rights, but that unions control teachers with fear and a lot of misinformation. She said unions have monopoly control: if teachers wanted a second union because their union was not doing a great job, they could not bring in a different one. She said the union has monopoly control over teacher email and teacher mailboxes, both physical and electronic. Because of that, teachers hear only one side of the story. She said the union holds teachers under a culture of fear, and many teachers fear that if they opt out they will be fired, lose their job, or be picked on by an unscrupulous administrator. She said the unions are very good at dividing, creating a culture of division between teachers and administration and parents, and that teachers are afraid, which in her opinion is why more of them do not opt out A Teacher’s Brave Stand Against Her Union – Rebecca Friedrichs and Terry Pell (2017).
Across episodes
The topic is treated in two episodes: the February 20, 2016 episode with Gail Heriot, and the June 18, 2017 episode with Rebecca Friedrichs and Terry Pell. The earlier treatment focuses on the legal posture of the case after Scalia’s death and the expected 5–4 vote; the later treatment shifts to the plaintiff’s account of union monopoly control and the culture of fear among teachers. The excerpts show no development in the legal status of the case between the two episodes.
What the sources do not cover
The excerpts do not state the outcome of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association or any subsequent proceedings. They do not identify the lower court whose decision a 4–4 vote would affirm, nor the constitutional provision beyond the First Amendment that the case turned on. They do not give the date of Scalia’s death or the names of the other justices. They do not state the size of the California Teachers Association or the number of teachers affected.