freedom of association

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a state charitable donor disclosure regulation unconstitutionally infringes on donors’ and charitable organizations’ free speech and association rights. California recently started enforcing its Schedule B regulation, which requires charitable organizations to provide the confidential names of their financial donors. Petitioners Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Thomas More Law Center argue that this compelled disclosure is facially unconstitutional because it fails “exacting” scrutiny and unconstitutional as applied to them because of the extreme risks to their political minority donors. Respondent Matthew Rodriquez, the Attorney General of California, argues that the regulation is necessary to enforce charitable fraud laws and that California can meet its regulatory objectives while simultaneously protecting donors’ confidential data. The Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether charities in California must disclose the names of their donors to state regulators and will also determine the bounds of organizational free association rights.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Hastings Christian Legal Society (“CLS”) required that members agree with its core religious beliefs and pledge to live accordingly. Due to this requirement, the University of California-Hastings College of Law refused to recognize CLS as a registered student organization. Specifically, CLS’s membership requirement violated a nondiscrimination policy prohibiting registered student organizations from discriminating on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. CLS argued that Hastings violated its First Amendment right to free association and free exercise of religion by denying it an exemption from the nondiscrimination policy. The Ninth Circuit rejected CLS’s claims, holding that the school’s policy was viewpoint-neutral and reasonable in light of the school’s educational mission. The Supreme Court’s decision will settle a circuit split over whether a public school can require a religious student organization to open its membership to all students, regardless of their beliefs

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Under Illinois law, caregivers who provide in-home assistance to disabled individuals through certain Medicaid-waiver programs may be compelled to support a private organization to be their exclusive representative for collective-bargaining purposes. According to Illinois, the purpose of the mandate is to prevent inter-union rivalries that might hinder collective-bargaining negotiations and to prevent non-union members from “free-riding” off union members.  In this case, the Supreme Court will consider whether compelled support for exclusive representation in this specific context violates the Constitution. Petitioners argue that forcing in-home service providers to unionize infringes upon their First Amendments rights, including freedom of speech and freedom of association.  Respondents counter that the Supreme Court’s precedent allows the government to force public workers to unionize when there is a compelling government interest for doing so. However, the fact that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari on such a narrow issue has many commentators speculating that the Court may be intending to decide much more than is immediately apparent, including decisions that may have drastic consequences for the very future of labor unions. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

In Paterson, New Jersey’s 2006 mayoral election, Mayor Jose Torres faced former police chief Lawrence Spagnola. See Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 777 F.3d 147, 149–50 (3d Cir. 2015). Although he was friends with Spagnola and supported him privately, Paterson police detective Jeffrey Heffernan did not campaign for Spagnola, vote in the election, or consider himself politically active. But the day after picking up a Spagnola campaign yard sign at his mother’s request, Heffernan was demoted for his alleged political activities. See id. The Supreme Court will decide if Heffernan, to raise a First Amendment retaliation claim, must show that he actually engaged in constitutionally protected activity, or merely demonstrate that the City of Paterson fired him based on its belief that he engaged in protected activity. Heffernan argues that the First Amendment protects government employees from adverse action that is based upon political expression or association, regardless of the true nature of employees’ activities. See Brief for Petitioner, Jeffrey Heffernan at at 14. But Paterson maintains that the First Amendment protects only the literal exercise of association and speech. See Brief for Respondent, City of Paterson et al. at 8–12. The Court’s decision will impact how public employees engage in political activity, and the amount of litigation surrounding retaliation claims. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties