This week, we examine one Ninth Circuit decision exploring the extent to which the deprivation of information and statutorily-conferred powers can satisfy Article IIIs injury-in-fact requirement, and a second declining to extend the Supreme Courts decision in Janus to former union-members asserting First Amendment right not to pay agreed-upon dues.
SOUTHCENTRAL FOUNDATION v. ANTHCThe Court holds that a board of directors alleged delegation of decision-making authority to an executive committee, and a confidentiality policy that allegedly restricted the flow of information to board members, sufficed to confer Article III standing under a statute entitling plaintiff to a voting representative on the board of directors.
Panel: Judges Gould, Bea, and Murguia, with Judge Murguia writing the opinion.
Key highlight: Because we conclude that Section 325 [of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998] conferred governance and participation rights to [plaintiff], which necessarily includes an entitlement to information necessary to effectively exercise those rights, we reverse the district courts dismissal of [plaintiff]s complaint for lack of Article III standing.
Background: Congress created the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (the Consortium) under Section 325 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1998 to provide health services at the Alaska Native Medical Center in Anchorage, Alaska. Southcentral Foundation (Southcentral) is a nonprofit regional tribal health organization that provides health care to some 65,000 Alaska Natives as a member of the Consortium. Section 325 provides in relevant part that the Consortium shall be governed by a 15-member Board of Directors, which shall be composed of one representative of each of 13 regional tribal health organizations, including Southcentral, and two tribal representatives. The statute also provides that [e]ach member of the Board of Directors shall be entitled to cast one vote. Decisions of the Board of Directors shall be made by consensus whenever possible, and by majority vote in the event that no consensus can be reached.
Southcentral alleged that the Consortiums board, over Southcentrals objection, created an executive committee authorized to take actions without ratification by the full board. The executive committee then allegedly approved lucrative employment contracts for Consortium executives without disclosing the terms of those contracts to the full board. A few years later, the board also adopted a strict confidentiality policy that allegedly gave unidentified Consortium personnel absolute discretion to restrict information from being shared even with the Board of Directors, with a rebuttable presumption against disclosure. Southcentral sought declaratory relief that the Consortium violated Section 325 when it: (1) formed the Executive Committee and delegated the authority of the full board, and (2) erected informational barriers to board member decision-making. The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that Southcentral failed to allege an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing.
Result: The Ninth Circuit reversed. The Court began by laying out the now-familiar requirements for Article III injury-in-fact: to confer standing, an injury must be particularized (affect[ing] the plaintiff in a personal and individual way) and concrete (de facto; that is, it must actually exist.). Applying that standard, the Court first addressed Southcentrals executive committee claim. The statutory language conferring governance and participation rights on representatives of each member health organization made clear that Southcentrals alleged injury was particularized and concrete, the Court reasoned, because the creation of the executive committee deprived Southcentral of precisely those express statutory powers. The Court was not convinced by the Consortiums argument that Section 325s participation rights only applied to providing health care, not management decisions, or its argument that Section 325 grants governance rights only to individual directors, rather than the organizations they represent. Because Congress endowed each specified regional health entity with the right to have a representative on the Board that stands in the shoes of the designating entity by acting on its behalf, Southcentral had alleged sufficient injury to its statutory decision-making power.
As for the confidentiality policy, the Court reached a similar conclusion. Because the Consortiums policy allegedly restricted information necessary to make decisions called for by the statute, the Court said Southcentral had adequately alleged Article III injury. In so holding, the Court rejected the Consortiums argument that to satisfy Article III, an alleged informational injury must stem from an express statutory right to receive such information. Making informed decisions requires having information, the Court reasoned. Because Southcentrals informational injury was inextricably tied to its interest in exercising its governance and participation rights under the statute, the Court concluded that Southcentral had alleged sufficient injury-in-fact. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
BELGAU v. INSLEEThe Court holds that former union members who had agreed to allow their employer, the State of Washington, to deduct union dues even if they terminated their union membership had no First Amendment claim when that agreement was enforced.
Panel: Judges McKeown, Christen, and Harpool (W.D. Mo.), with Judge McKeown writing the opinion.
Key Highlight: We join the swelling chorus of courts recognizing that Janus does not extend a First Amendment right to avoid paying union dues.
Background: Plaintiffs were Washington state employees who had joined a union (WSFE) shortly after starting work. They had signed contracts allowing the state to deduct union dues from their paychecks. They subsequently agreed to revised contracts making their consent to the deduction of such dues irrevocable for one year.
In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Muni Employees, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), the Supreme Court overturned longstanding precedent and held that public employers cannot automatically deduct union fees from the paycheck of nonunion employees because such deductions compel nonmembers to subsidize union speech. After Janus was issued, the plaintiffs notified their union that they no longer wanted to be members, and the union terminated their memberships. The state, however, continued to deduct their union dues until the irrevocable one-year terms for dues payment had expired.
In response, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action against various state officials and the union, pressing First Amendment claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.
Result: The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Court began by holding that the plaintiffs constitutional claims against the union failed for lack of state action. First, the Court reasoned, the plaintiffs could not establish that the claimed constitutional deprivation resulted from the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the state or by a person from whom the State is responsible; rather, the source of their harm was their contract with the union, not any state statute or policy. Second, and in any event, the plaintiffs also could not establish that the party charged with the deprivation could be described in all fairness as a state actor: the union was plainly a private entity, and it had not been coerced or overseen by the state in shaping or entering the challenged agreements, nor had it acted in concert with the state. As the Court declared, Providing a machinery for implement the private agreement by performing an administrative task does not render Washington and the [union] joint actors.
The Court next turned to the plaintiffs claims against the state, holding that these likewise failed. The Court first addressed whether it had jurisdiction to consider this issue, given that the plaintiffs had sought only prospective relief and the state was no longer deducting fees from their paychecks. It determined that these claims satisfied the capable of repetition yet evading review exception to mootness, as the one-year period of fees-deductions was too short to allow full litigation, and other similarly situated employees might confront the same issue.
On the merits, the Court rejected the plaintiffs contention that the state had violated their First Amendment rights. As the Court explained, plaintiffs complained of obligations that were self-imposed rather than imposed by the State, and the First Amendment provides [no] right to disregard promises that would otherwise be enforced under state law. Although Janus had condemned the practice of automatically deducting agency fees from nonmembers who were not asked and not required to consent before the fees are deducted, the plaintiffs here had experienced no such compulsion. They had voluntarily joined the union and accepted the benefits of membership, and thus had agreed to bear the financial burdens of membership. The First Amendment, the Court held, does not prevent the State from honoring that agreement.
Here is the original post:
This Week at The Ninth: Informational Injury and Union Dues - JD Supra
- I'm a First Amendment scholar and I think Big Tech should be left alone - The Conversation US - January 23rd, 2021
- Letter to the editor: Put the First Amendment first - Daily Mississippian - January 23rd, 2021
- Napolitano: Does the First Amendment restrain Big Tech? - Daily Herald - January 23rd, 2021
- Do Critics of Police Have the First Amendment Procedural Protections That Nazis Get? - Reason - January 23rd, 2021
- Ask the expert: The First Amendment and free speech - MSUToday - January 23rd, 2021
- Letter: To everyone, including friends and family members, who feel First Amendment rights are being denied - Sumter Item - January 23rd, 2021
- Knight Institute Urges Supreme Court To Preserve Ruling That Trump Violated First Amendment 01/25/2021 - MediaPost Communications - January 23rd, 2021
- Do Social Media Companies Have Too Much Power Over The First Amendment? - WFAE - January 23rd, 2021
- What the First Amendment Really Says About Whether Trump Incited the Capitol Riot - Slate - January 23rd, 2021
- Ask the Lawyer: There is no First Amendment right to social media use - The Oakland Press - January 23rd, 2021
- Permit Requirements for Filming in National Parks Violate First Amendment - Reason - January 23rd, 2021
- Does the First Amendment protect you on social media? - RADIO.COM - January 23rd, 2021
- Simpson sues Board of Elections, claims dismissal violated First Amendment rights - Greensboro News & Record - January 23rd, 2021
- What does the day after Section 230 reform look like? - Brookings Institution - January 23rd, 2021
- Twitter and Facebook Just Proved That Deplatforming Works - The Nation - January 23rd, 2021
- Afternoon Briefs: SCOTUS will consider cheerleader's First Amendment case; former AG dies at 88 - ABA Journal - January 5th, 2021
- No Blanket Protection for Internet Platforms - The Wall Street Journal - January 5th, 2021
- Walsh Vetoes Ordinance That Would Restrict Police Use Of Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets - WBUR - January 5th, 2021
- Happy new and old year: 2020 just won't go away when it comes to first amendment issues in 2021 - Hopkinsville Kentucky New Era - January 5th, 2021
- Far-Right VA State Senator Claims huge victory for the First Amendment and for open access to government for all Virginians. Except That the Court... - January 5th, 2021
- Will You Save Money On Hospital Bills With New Price Transparency Rule? : Shots - Health News - NPR - January 5th, 2021
- "I am asking Washingtonians and those who live in the region to stay out of the downtown area on Tuesday and Wednesday and not to engage with... - January 5th, 2021
- Julian Assange Extradition to U.S. Blocked Over Mental Health Concerns - The New York Times - January 5th, 2021
- The First Amendment is under siege and most Americans know it - The Central New York Business Journal - December 30th, 2020
- First Circuit Creates Exception To Massachusetts Wiretap Statute Based On First Amendment Rights, Allows Citizens And Press To Record Police Activity... - December 30th, 2020
- First Circuit Appeals Court Reaffirms Its 2011 Decision: The First Amendment Protects The Recording Of Cops - Techdirt - December 30th, 2020
- New Year's Eve In The Year Of The Coronavirus - The Rhino Times of Greensboro - The Rhino TImes - December 30th, 2020
- On Religion: COVID was year's top religion story. But which story? - Tahlequah Daily Press - December 30th, 2020
- How Lin Wood Became a Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theorist - The New York Times - December 30th, 2020
- The Year That Changed the Internet - The Atlantic - December 30th, 2020
- Section 230 Isn't A Subsidy; It's A Rule Of Civil Procedure - Techdirt - December 30th, 2020
- 7 Recommendations for the New Year - Contracting Business - December 30th, 2020
- Smith: Small steps to bring hope and wonder - The Register-Guard - December 30th, 2020
- Court Enjoins Enforcement of Combatting Race and Sex Stereotyping Executive Order for Federal Contractors and Grantees - JD Supra - December 30th, 2020
- COOMBES: Put the First Amendment first - University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily - October 12th, 2020
- Did the First Amendment to the Constitution lay the foundation for an authoritarian state? - The Indian Express - October 12th, 2020
- First Amendment Right to Record Child-Protection Visit to Your Home - Reason - October 12th, 2020
- First Amendment scholars weigh in on legality of Terminal Tower Biden Harris light display - cleveland.com - October 12th, 2020
- Use of Trademarks in Creative Works & Lanham Act Liability - The National Law Review - October 12th, 2020
- 'Introduction to the First Amendment Museum' topic of presentation - Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel - October 12th, 2020
- Judge amy coney barrett and the First Amendment - Lexology - October 12th, 2020
- A vote for Trump is a vote against the First Amendment - Poughkeepsie Journal - October 12th, 2020
- Trump Admin. Says First Amendment Is Moot In WeChat Case - Law360 - October 12th, 2020
- You Shouldn't Get Sued for Petitioning the Government - Cato Institute - October 12th, 2020
- Reporters Committee welcomes Inasmuch Foundation Legal Fellow - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - October 12th, 2020
- FIRST 5: Trump and COVID-19 -- How 'free' are/should we be? - Salina Post - October 12th, 2020
- Candidates and voters alike suffer as yard signs are targeted for theft and vandalism - Burlington Hawk Eye - October 12th, 2020
- Letters to the Editor: The First Amendment in Rio Rancho - Albuquerque Journal - September 21st, 2020
- Texas A&M University Introduces First Amendment Website - Texas A&M University Today - September 21st, 2020
- Attorney on first amendment rights of protesters: The government must protect these rights - RochesterFirst - September 21st, 2020
- Polk County GOP chairperson gathering signatures in support of a Second Amendment Designated County - Grand Forks Herald - September 21st, 2020
- Health officials urge people who attended Trump rally on Saturday to get tested for coronavirus - The Fayetteville Observer - September 21st, 2020
- Potsdam 'toilet gardens' will stay, for now, as federal judge grants injunction in toilet case - NNY360 - September 21st, 2020
- Even with a Recent Lag, Special Interest PACs Enjoy Big Fundraising Edge Over Parties - InsiderNJ - September 21st, 2020
- Readers respond: Racists coming out of the woodwork - oregonlive.com - September 21st, 2020
- WeChat and TikTok Sanctions Not to Came Into Effect Yesterday - JD Supra - September 21st, 2020
- The Oklahoma Meat Consumer Protection Act is Meat Lobby's Response to the Increased Consumer Demand for Plant-Based Options - vegconomist - the vegan... - September 21st, 2020
- Army esports team denies accusations of violating First Amendment, offering fake giveaways - ArmyTimes.com - July 21st, 2020
- FIRST FIVE: Fighting over the meaning of First Amendment freedoms - hays Post - July 21st, 2020
- My View: In Provincetown, strange views of the First Amendment - Wicked Local Provincetown - July 21st, 2020
- John Bolton Gambles That Constitution Will Save Profits on Book That Was Embarrassing to the President - Law & Crime - July 21st, 2020
- Second Circuit Wrecks All Sorts Of First Amendment Protections To Keep Lawsuit Against Joy Reid Alive - Techdirt - July 21st, 2020
- Editorial A flushtrated community: Potsdam trampling on First Amendment rights of toilet artist - NNY360 - July 21st, 2020
- This Week in Technology + Press Freedom: July 19, 2020 - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - July 21st, 2020
- Churchill: Troy preacher has the right to offend - Times Union - July 21st, 2020
- More conferences cancel fall sports and other COVID-19 news - Inside Higher Ed - July 21st, 2020
- First Amendment on the street | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item - June 30th, 2020
- Taking a cellphone video of police? Theres a First Amendment for that - Seattle Times - June 30th, 2020
- First Amendment Bars California from Requiring a Proposition 65 Glyphosate Warning - JD Supra - June 30th, 2020
- Read the First Amendment | Letters To The Editor - The Central Virginian - June 30th, 2020
- First Amendment right to protest is in jeopardy in Jacksonville - The Florida Times-Union - June 30th, 2020
- Pence says First Amendment is why Trump campaign held Tulsa rally despite local health officials' warnings - Yahoo News - June 30th, 2020
- Supreme Court hands win to religious schools | TheHill - The Hill - June 30th, 2020
- Letter to the Editor: Remember and Defend the First Amendment - Dana Point Times - June 20th, 2020
- Another look at the First Amendment | Opinion - Franklin News Post - June 20th, 2020
- Death threats protected by First Amendment, attorney says - Alpena News - June 20th, 2020
- Really Pathetic: First Amendment Expert Torches DOJ Efforts to Stop John Bolton Book - Law & Crime - June 20th, 2020
- The First Amendment protects attorneys from compelled speech | TheHill - The Hill - June 17th, 2020
- Protesters are protected by the First Amendment and will not be cited any violations if they remain peaceful - WATN - Local 24 - June 17th, 2020
- Dear Journal: That's some amendment, that First Amendment; let's use it - The Daily World - June 17th, 2020