SCOTUS Strikes Again

Posted on by

The Supreme Court released two decisions this morning, both of them decided along liberal/conservative lines, 5 to 4.  The first decision, from Illinois health care workers against SEIU, sided against the union. It wasn’t unanimous but it was a rebuke to unions planning to expand at the expense of the public. On a 5-4 decisions, SCOTUS says that public service unions like SEIU cannot force non-members to pay dues.

Court: Public union can’t make nonmembers pay fees

By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court dealt a blow to public sector unions Monday, ruling that thousands of home health care workers in Illinois cannot be required to pay fees that help cover the union’s costs of collective bargaining.

In a 5-4 split along ideological lines, the justices said the practice violates the First Amendment rights of nonmembers who disagree with the positions that unions take.

The ruling is a setback for labor unions that have bolstered their ranks – and bank accounts – in Illinois and other states by signing up hundreds of thousands of in-home care workers. It could lead to an exodus of members who will have little incentive to pay dues if nonmembers don’t have to share the burden of union costs.

But the ruling was limited to this particular segment of workers – not private sector unions – and it stopped short of overturning decades of practice that has generally allowed public sector unions to pass through their representation costs to nonmembers.

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said home care workers are different from other types of government employees because they work primarily for their disabled or elderly customers and do not have most of the rights and benefits of state employees.

You can read the entire article here.

A lawyer friend of mine explained that the defense, the Illinois health care litigators, argued for an exception. Therefore, SCOTUS could only grant that exception. If the grounds of the argument had been wider or on other grounds, the decision could have been different—knocking down all union extortion of dues from non-members…or siding with the union. In any case it was a step in the right direction even it it does apply only to public sector unions.

The second decision announced today is one the religious and 1st Amendment advocates have been waiting for. It is the famous Hobby-Lobby, Mardel and Conestoga suit against HHS that would force these companies to provide contraception insurance against the company owner’s religious views.

Hobby Lobby Wins Contraceptive Ruling in Supreme Court

Jun 30, 2014, 10:25 AM ET

Companies are not required to pay for employees’ contraceptives for women if they have religious objections, the Supreme Court ruled today.

The justices’ decision came in a 5-4 ruling in the much anticipated case.

The court holds: “As applied to closely held corporations the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA”

Alito wrote that “RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for profit corporations like Conestoga and Hobby Lobby” and the “The HHS contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion.”

“The Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrict means of furthering that interest,” according to the majority opinion.

Alito wrote that the onwers of Hobby Lobby believe that the coverage required of the health care law “is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage … HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases.”

“Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies,” Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

The rest of the article can be read here.

Justice Ginsberg called Alito’s written decision, ‘radical’. She thinks the 1st Amendment is radical, too. She has said before that she believes the Constitution is not a good example for other countries.

It was not a good day for Obama and his union sycophants. It was a good day for the rest of us. Missouri HB 1617 was passed in this last legislative session and will be put before the voters in the November general election. HB 1617, also known as ‘Paycheck Protection’ will require public service unions in Missouri to acquire written permission to deduct dues and from state employee’s paychecks. The unions will no longer force the state to arbitrarily act as the union’s agent to collect union dues.

As a friend of mine says, “It’s a good day for Liberty!”

Facebook

1 thought on “SCOTUS Strikes Again”

  1. It was not a totally good day by the SCOTUS. They refused to hear the challenge of the lower appeals court ruling on the cross at the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, CA. The lower court ruled the cross was unconstitutional and must be removed from federal property. The SCOTUS refused to hear the challenge, thus the ruling stands. It’s one more attack against Christianity by the Progressive humanist movement. If the removal of this cross is allowed to take place, they’ll go after the tombstones in Arlington Cemetery next. Every veteran in America needs to get involved. Every Christian in America needs to get involved.

Comments are closed.