Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Ass'n
555 U.S. 353, 129 S. Ct. 1093, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 1632 (2009)
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment does not compel a government to facilitate speech by providing payroll deduction services for political activities, and a State may prohibit its political subdivisions from offering such deductions under rational basis review.
Facts:
- Under Idaho's Right to Work Act, public employees could historically authorize their employers to deduct union dues from their wages.
- Prior to 2003, these deductions could include funds designated for union political activities and political action committees.
- In 2003, the Idaho Legislature enacted the Voluntary Contributions Act (VCA).
- The VCA amended state law to explicitly prohibit payroll deductions for 'political activities,' defined as electoral activities and contributions to candidates or PACs.
- The legislation applied this ban to all employers, including the state itself and all political subdivisions like counties, municipalities, and school districts.
- A group of labor unions representing local government employees sought to continue using the payroll system to collect political funds.
- The unions accepted the ban was valid for state-level employees but challenged its application to local government employers.
- Violation of the statute was punishable by fines or imprisonment.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff labor organizations sued the county prosecutor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.
- The District Court upheld the ban as applied to state-level employees.
- The District Court struck down the ban as applied to local government and private employers.
- The State defendants appealed the decision regarding local government employees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling, applying strict scrutiny to find the ban unconstitutional at the local level.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the First Amendment prohibit a State legislature from banning local government employers from allowing payroll deductions for union political activities?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No. The First Amendment does not prevent a State from determining that its political subdivisions may not provide payroll deductions for political activities. The Court reasoned that the First Amendment protects the right to be free from government abridgment of speech, but it does not confer an affirmative right to use government payroll mechanisms to fund that speech. The State is not suppressing speech but simply declining to promote it. Because the State is not infringing on a fundamental right, the law is subject only to rational basis review, not strict scrutiny. The State has a legitimate interest in avoiding the appearance of government favoritism or entanglement with partisan politics. Furthermore, local governments are not sovereign entities but are 'creatures of the State' established to carry out state functions. Therefore, the State has absolute discretion to grant or withhold powers from its subdivisions, and the distinction between state and local level administration is legally immaterial in this context.
Dissent - Justice Stevens
Yes. The ban is unconstitutional because it is a discriminatory restriction intended to impede union fundraising. Justice Stevens argued that while the government need not subsidize speech, it cannot regulate it based on viewpoint. He pointed out that the statute was part of 'Right to Work' legislation and specifically targeted labor organizations while leaving charitable deductions untouched. He viewed the law as underinclusive regarding its stated goal of political neutrality and concluded that the legislature's actual purpose was to suppress union political speech.
Dissent - Justice Souter
Yes. The writ of certiorari should have been dismissed or the case remanded to address viewpoint discrimination. Justice Souter agreed that the State controls its subdivisions but argued that the law strongly appeared to be viewpoint discrimination targeting unions. However, because the unions did not press the viewpoint discrimination argument sufficiently in the lower courts, the Court was in a difficult position to rule on the true constitutional defect. He concluded the case was not a proper vehicle for refining First Amendment doctrine.
Concurrence - Justice Ginsburg
No. The constitutional analysis regarding the State's power over payroll deductions applies equally to state and local entities. Justice Ginsburg concurred briefly to emphasize that the only question was the relationship between the State and its subdivisions. She agreed that for this purpose, local government employment should be aligned with state-level employment, meaning the State's ban is valid for both.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Breyer
Maybe. The case should be remanded to determine if the law is applied evenhandedly to all political deductions or if it targets unions. Justice Breyer agreed that the State controls local governments but disagreed with the majority's 'abridgment vs. promotion' analysis. He proposed a proportionality test asking whether the burden on speech is disproportionate to the government's interest. He expressed concern that the statute might single out labor-related deductions, which would be unconstitutional, but found the record insufficient to decide without a remand.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'subsidy vs. penalty' distinction in First Amendment jurisprudence, establishing that government refusal to facilitate speech via administrative mechanisms (like payroll deductions) is not the same as suppressing speech. Consequently, such refusal triggers only rational basis review rather than strict scrutiny. The decision also reinforces the 'Hunter doctrine,' affirming that local governments are 'creatures of the state' with no independent constitutional rights against their creator. This grants states broad authority to control the administrative practices of local municipalities, even when those practices intersect with the First Amendment rights of employees.
