SCOTUSblog recently highlighted the Foundation's Harris v. Quinn case as a petition to watch during the latest Supreme Court conference. Harris challenges a series of executive orders issued by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and his disgraced predecessor, Rod Blagojevich, aimed at forcing unwilling homecare providers into a union. According to the governors' orders, personal care providers are to be considered "public employees" for the purposes of union organizing, a move that has since forced thousands of unwilling care providers into the SEIU's forced dues-paying ranks.
With the help of Foundation staff attorneys, eight Illinois homecare providers are challenging these executive orders on the grounds that forcing them to affiliate with a union and subsidize union activities violates their rights to free expression and association.
Pam Harris, the lead plaintiff in the case and a personal care provider to her developmentally-disabled son, had this to say about the governors' forced unionism scheme last November:
"My primary concern is that someone else will be telling me how to best care for my son. Union dues would be a deduction from what we have available to provide for my son’s needs. And then I would be giving my money to a union to exercise their political muscle on issues I may vehemently disagree with."
For more information on the case, check out the Foundation's Supreme Court petition. You can also read amicus curiae briefs filed in support of the Foundation's petition from the Cato Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation.