Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assn.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assoc. | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||||
| Argued January 10, 2007 Decided June 14, 2007 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||||
| It does not violate the First Amendment for a State to require that its public-sector unions receive affirmative authorization from a nonmember before spending that nonmember's agency fees for election-related purposes. | ||||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||||
| Chief Justice: John Glover Roberts, Jr. Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito |
||||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||||
| Majority by: Scalia Concurrence by: Breyer |
||||||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||||||
| U.S. Const. amend. I; Washington Fair Campaign Practices Act ยง 760; National Labor Relations Act | ||||||||||||
Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assoc., 551 U.S.___(2007) (2007) was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with labor unions first amendment rights.
Contents |
[edit] Background of the case
The National Labor and Relations Act allows unions to tax non-union members if the Union represents them in collective bargaining processes. As ruled in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed.,U.S. 431 209, a union may not use objecting non-union member fees for purposes other than collective bargaining negotiations. This is prohibited by the First Amendment.
The State of Washington passed legislation that requires unions to receive permission from non-union members to use their fees to support political campaigns. Petitioners Gary Davenport, et al., contend that they failed to receive the required paperwork to oppose the use of their money for political campaigns.
A lawsuit was filed against the Washington Education Association by Washington Attorney General Christine Gregoire. The Thurston County, Washington Superior Court ruled that the union had to pay $590,375 in fines for intentionally violating the Washington statute. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that section 760 of the Washington Fair Campaign Practices Act had violated the 1st Amendment of the Constitution by placing the speech of union members as more valuable than teachers. However, the case was then appealed to the Washington Supreme Court ruled in favor of the union stating that the law is unconstitutional because it places too large of an administrative burden on the union. Therefore, non-union members could not prevent the union from using their money for political campaign purposes.
In 2006, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Opening arguments began on January 10, 2007 and they reached a decision on June 14, 2007[1].
[edit] The Court's decision
The Court, by a unanimous vote, per Justice Antonin Scalia, overturned the previous Washington Supreme Court's ruling.
Justice Scalia outlined two reasons why the Court believed that the Washington statute was constitutional:
1.) Using the Court precedents established by Abood and Hudson v. Michigan, The Court argues that the Washington Supreme Court misinterpreted the Supreme Court's reasoning in those previous rulings. The Washington Supreme Court argued that the clause "dissent is not to be presumed--it must affirmatively be made known to the union by the dissenting employee." in Hudson demonstrates First Amendment partiality to one group (the petitioners) and marginalizes the unions understood freedom of expression. Justice Scalia argues that the Court misinterpreted the ruling, and in fact, voters can limit the entitlement that unions have to collect and use non-members funds.
2.) The Washington statute was not unconstitutional because of the distinction between public and private sector unions. The unions violated the extent of the non-members free speech because they were using tax-payers dollars to fund political election campaigns. This limitation of the union's free speech protection is not content based, argues Justice Scalia. The voters of Washington passed allow that prevents the government from "acting in a capacity other than as regulator." Therefore, it does not threaten the "marketplace of ideas" that the First Amendment seeks to protect.
[edit] Breyer's Concurrence
In a concurring opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer, says he agree with all aspects of Justice Scalia's opinion except for the respondent's arguments that had not been raised in lower courts. This criticism is one of procedure and not content. Justice Breyer believed that the lower courts should have addressed arguments before they were heard by the Supreme Court.
