« Seth Barrett Tillman: Merryman Redux
Michael Ramsey
| Main | Gail Heriot on Hate Crimes and the Thirteenth Amendment
Michael Ramsey »


William Baude & Eugene Volokh: Compelled Subsidies and the First Amendment
Michael Ramsey

William Baude (University of Chicago - Law School) and Eugene Volokh (University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law) have posted Compelled Subsidies and the First Amendment (132 Harvard Law Review (forthcoming 2018)) on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

Sometimes the government compels people to pay money to organizations they oppose. A lawyer may be forced to fund a bar association, a college student to fund student group activities, a public employee forced to fund a labor union. Unsurprisingly, people may bristle at such compulsion. Nobody likes having their money taken, and knowing that it will be spent on causes one opposes seems to add insult to injury. But when is it unconstitutional?

For forty years, the Court has unanimously concluded that being required to pay money to a union, or to a state bar, is a serious burden on one’s First Amendment rights. This burden, the Court has held, is generally unconstitutional when the money is used for most kinds of political advocacy. 

In Janus v. AFSCME, a majority of the Court went further, and held that requiring public employees to pay union agency fees is categorically unconstitutional, even when the money is used for collective bargaining. Such public-sector collective bargaining, the majority held, is itself inherently political. And the government interests in mandating such payments don’t suffice to justify such requirements. There was a strong dissent by four Justices, but as we discuss in Part I, we think the majority had the better argument on both of these two points. 

But we think the majority—and for that matter the dissent, and the unanimous opinions in Abood v. Bd. of Ed. and Keller v. State Bar —erred on the preliminary point. The better view, we think, is that requiring people only to pay money, whether to private organizations or to the government, is not a First Amendment problem at all. The employees in Janus were not compelled to speak, or to associate. They were compelled to pay, just as we all are compelled to pay taxes; our having to pay taxes doesn’t violate our First Amendment rights, even when the taxes are used for speech we disapprove of—likewise with having to pay agency fees. If we are right, as we argue in Part II, then the result in Janus was wrong. 

In Part III, we turn from evaluating the decision to anticipating its consequences. We doubt Janus will have significant effects on government speech rights (Part III.A), but it will likely bar the funding of other forms of private speech. Janus will likely extend to a prohibition on state bar dues, at least so long as the bar is seen as sufficiently removed from other government agencies (Part III.B). It might also include constraints on public university student governments’ use of student activity fees, though universities can create accounting workarounds that will practically allow such student activity funding to continue (Part III.C).

Finally, and perhaps most consequentially, Janus may lead to massive liability for unions that have collected the agency fees that are now viewed as unconstitutional. (Part III.D). Though the fees were seen as valid when collected, the Supreme Court’s precedents say that constitutional reversals in civil cases are generally retroactive, so everyone in Janus’s shoes can get agency fee refunds just as Janus himself could (at least so long as the statute of limitations has not lapsed). Moreover, private organizations such as unions are generally not entitled to qualified immunity or similar defenses. While the unions do have some possible arguments to mitigate the damages or try to claim a special form of good faith, those defenses are speculative, and cannot be counted on.

William Baude has more at Volokh Conspiracy: What Janus Got Right -- and Wrong.

RELATED:  Martin Lederman comments on my prior post on Janus:

On the Buckley argument, you write:  "If voluntary contributions are akin to voluntary speech, then compelled contributions are akin to compelled speech.  I'm surprised that the Janus majority did not make more of this analogy.

Of course, the Abood majority did make that move.  The reason the Court has abandoned it, I suspect, is that the analogy doesn't withstand close scrutiny and has been subjected to withering critique.  See, e.g., Greg Klass at 1117-23 and Baude/Volokh at 18-20.  A quick way of putting the point:  
The Court has held that contribution limits trigger at least some 1A scrutiny because a campaign contributor "speaks" "symbolically" to the candidate by giving her money.  But of course there's only such "symbolic expression" where the contributor intends her contribution to send a "message" of support to the candidate.  Obviously, when the state sends the objecting feepayer's funds to the union, it does not convey any intended expression of support by the feepayer, symbolic or otherwise.  Hence, no analogy, even if Buckley's scrutiny is defensible.