Washington, DC (March 31, 2008)<\/b> \u2013 Today the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari<\/i> and agreed to hear the case of Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association<\/i>, thus agreeing to review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that limited the applicability of an Idaho state law banning payroll deductions for union Political Action Committees (PACs).<\/p>\n
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Sutherland Institute, and Utah Taxpayers Association filed a joint amicus<\/i> (\u201cfriend of the court\u201d) brief urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal filed by the Attorney General for the State of Idaho.<\/p>\n
The lower U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling argued that the payroll deduction ban should only apply to union payroll deductions at the state government level, and that local government bodies were independent political entities outside of the reach the state law.<\/p>\n
But the joint amici<\/i> brief pointed out that a ruling by the Ninth Circuit wrongly forces Idaho taxpayers to subsidize union political activities by offering valuable payroll deduction services to union officials.<\/p>\n
Even more alarmingly, union lawyers could try to use the Ninth Circuit\u2019s reasoning to launch fresh new attacks on state Right to Work laws as applied to local government bodies. The joint amici<\/i> brief emphasized that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that unions have no constitutional right to collect union dues from non-union members, much less use payroll deduction privileges to do so.<\/p>\n
In response to the Supreme Court\u2019s decision to hear the case, National Right to Work Vice President Stefan Gleason made the following remarks:<\/p>\n
\u201cWe applaud the Supreme Court\u2019s decision to revisit the activist ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Just like state governments, local governments should not act as bagmen for union political funds.<\/p>\n
\u201cStripping union officials of their payroll deduction privileges is good public policy. In fact, the State of Idaho should have gone much further than it did \u2013 by banning outright the use of public facilities to collect any<\/i> union funds whatsoever.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Washington, DC (March 31, 2008)<\/b> \u2013 Today the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari<\/i> and agreed to hear the case of Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association<\/i>, thus agreeing to review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that limited the applicability of an Idaho state law banning payroll deductions for union Political Action Committees (PACs).<\/p>\n
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Sutherland Institute, and Utah Taxpayers Association filed a joint amicus<\/i> (\u201cfriend of the court\u201d) brief urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal filed by the Attorney General for the State of Idaho.<\/p>\n
The lower U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling argued that the payroll deduction ban should only apply to union payroll deductions at the state government level, and that local government bodies were independent political entities outside of the reach the state law.<\/p>\n
But the joint amici<\/i> brief pointed out that a ruling by the Ninth Circuit wrongly forces Idaho taxpayers to subsidize union political activities by offering valuable payroll deduction services to union officials.<\/p>\n
Even more alarmingly, union lawyers could try to use the Ninth Circuit\u2019s reasoning to launch fresh new attacks on state Right to Work laws as applied to local government bodies. The joint amici<\/i> brief emphasized that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that unions have no constitutional right to collect union dues from non-union members, much less use payroll deduction privileges to do so.<\/p>\n
In response to the Supreme Court\u2019s decision to hear the case, National Right to Work Vice President Stefan Gleason made the following remarks:<\/p>\n
\u201cWe applaud the Supreme Court\u2019s decision to revisit the activist ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Just like state governments, local governments should not act as bagmen for union political funds.<\/p>\n
\u201cStripping union officials of their payroll deduction privileges is good public policy. In fact, the State of Idaho should have gone much further than it did \u2013 by banning outright the use of public facilities to collect any<\/i> union funds whatsoever.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[888],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2743","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"\n