Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass'n

• Decision Date: 24 February 2009
• Docket Number: No. 07–869.,07–869.
• Citation: 77 USLW 4105,172 L.Ed.2d 770,72 A.L.R.6th 751,555 U.S. 353,129 S.Ct. 1093
• Parties: Ben YSURSA, Idaho Secretary of State, et al., Petitioners, v. POCATELLO EDUCATION ASSOCIATION et al.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

555 U.S. 353

129 S.Ct. 1093

172 L.Ed.2d 770

77 USLW 4105

72 A.L.R.6th 751

Ben YSURSA, Idaho Secretary of State, et al., Petitioners,

v.POCATELLO EDUCATION ASSOCIATION et al.

No. 07–869.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Nov. 3, 2008.

Decided Feb. 24, 2009.

Negative Treatment Reconsidered

West's I.C.A. § 44–2004(2)

Syllabus^*

Idaho's Right to Work Act permits public employees to authorize payroll deductions for general union dues, but prohibits such deductions for union political activities. Respondents—a group of Idaho public employee unions—sued, alleging that the ban on payroll deductions for political activities violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court upheld the ban at the state level, but struck it down as it applies to local governments. In affirming, the Ninth Circuit stated that, while Idaho has the ultimate control over local governmental units, it did not actually operate or control their payroll deduction systems. The court applied strict scrutiny to hold that the statute was unconstitutional as applied at the local level.

Held: Idaho's ban on political payroll deductions, as applied to local governmental units, does not infringe the unions' First Amendment rights. Pp. 1098 – 1101.

(a) Content-based restrictions on speech are “presumptively invalid” and subject to strict scrutiny. Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assn., 551 U.S. 177, 188, 127 S.Ct. 2372, 168 L.Ed.2d 71. The First Amendment does not, however, impose an obligation on government to subsidize speech. See Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540, 549, 103 S.Ct. 1997, 76 L.Ed.2d 129. Idaho's law does not restrict political speech, but rather declines to promote that speech by allowing public employee checkoffs for political activities. Idaho's public employee unions are free to engage in such speech as they see fit. They simply are barred from enlisting the State in support of that endeavor. Idaho's decision to limit public employee payroll deductions as it has does not infringe the unions' First Amendment rights. The State accordingly need only demonstrate a rational basis to justify the ban. Idaho's justification is the interest in avoiding the reality or appearance of government favoritism or entanglement with partisan politics. See, e.g.,Civil Service Comm'n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 565, 93 S.Ct. 2880, 37 L.Ed.2d 796. And the State's response to the problem is limited to its source—political payroll deductions. Cf. Davenport,supra. The ban plainly serves the State's interest in separating public employment from political activities. Pp. 1098 – 1099.

(b) The ban at issue is valid at the local level. The same deferential review applies whether the ban is directed at state or local governmental entities. Political subdivisions have never been considered sovereign entities but are instead “subordinate governmental instrumentalities.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 575, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506. The State's legislative action is subject to First Amendment scrutiny whether it is applicable at the state level, the local level, both, or some subpart of either, but no case suggests that a different analysis applies depending on the level of government affected. The ban furthers Idaho's interest in separating the operation of government from partisan politics, and that interest extends to all public employers at whatever level of government. Pp. 1100 – 1101.

504 F.3d 1053, reversed.

ROBERTS, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which GINSBURG, J., joined as to Parts I and III. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. STEVENS, J., and SOUTER, J., filed dissenting opinions.

Clay R. Smith, Boise, ID, for petitioners.

Jeremiah A. Collins, for respondents.

Lawrence G. Wasden, State of Idaho, Attorney General, Clay R. Smith, Counsel of Record, James D. Carlson, Deputy Attorneys General, Boise, ID, for Petitioners.

John E. Rumel, Idaho Education Association, Boise, Idaho, Jeremiah A. Collins, Counsel of Record, Laurence Gold, Bredhoff & Kaiser, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, for Respondents Pocatello Education Association, et al., John F. Greenfield, Boise, Idaho, for Respondent Idaho State AFL-CIO, Alan Herzfeld, James M. Piotrowski, Herzfeld & Piotrowski, L.L.P., Boise, ID, for Respondents Professional Fire Fighters of Idaho and International Association of Fire Fighters Local 743, Orrin Baird, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Service Employees International Union Local 687.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Under Idaho law, a public employee may elect to have a portion of his wages deducted by his employer and remitted to his union to pay union dues. He may not, however, choose to have an amount deducted and remitted to the union's political action committee, because Idaho law prohibits payroll deductions for political activities. A group of unions representing Idaho public employees challenged this limitation. They conceded that the limitation was valid as applied at the state level, but argued that it violated their First Amendment rights when applied to county, municipal, school district, and other local public employers.

We do not agree. The First Amendment prohibits government from “abridging the freedom of speech”; it does not confer an affirmative right to use government payroll mechanisms for the purpose of obtaining funds for expression. Idaho's law does not restrict political speech, but rather declines to promote that speech by allowing public employee checkoffs for political activities. Such a decision is reasonable in light of the State's interest in avoiding the appearance that carrying out the public's business is tainted by partisan political activity. That interest extends to government at the local as well as state level, and nothing in the First Amendment prevents a State from determining that its political subdivisions may not provide payroll deductions for political activities.

I

Idaho's Right to Work Act declares that the “right to work shall not be infringed or restricted in any way based on membership in, affiliation with, or financial support of a labor organization or on refusal to join, affiliate with, or financially or otherwise support a labor organization.” 1985 Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 2, § 1 (codified at Idaho Code § 44–2001 (Michie 2003)). As part of that policy, the Act prohibits any requirement for the payment of dues or fees to a labor organization as a condition of employment, § 44–2003, but authorizes employers to deduct union fees from an employee's wages with the employee's “signed written authorization,” § 44–2004(1). The Act covers all employees, “including all employees of the state and its political subdivisions.” § 44–2011.

Prior to 2003, employees could authorize both a payroll deduction for general union dues and a payroll deduction for union political activities conducted through a political action committee. App. 55–56, 83–84. In 2003, the Idaho Legislature passed the Voluntary Contributions Act (VCA). 2003 Sess. Laws chs. 97 and 340 (codified at Idaho Code §§ 44–2601 through 44–2605, and § 44–2004). That legislation, among other things, amended the Right to Work Act by adding a prohibition on payroll deductions for political purposes. That amendment provides: “Deductions for political activities as defined in chapter 26, title 44, Idaho Code, shall not be deducted from the wages, earnings or compensation of an employee.” § 44–2004(2). The term “political activities” is defined as “electoral activities, independent expenditures, or expenditures made to any candidate, political party, political action committee or political issues committee or in support of or against any ballot measure.” § 44–2602(1)(e). Violations of § 44–2004(2) are punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or up to 90 days of imprisonment, or both. § 44–2007.

Shortly before the VCA was to take effect, plaintiff labor organizations sued the Bannock County prosecuting attorney, the Idaho secretary of state, and the Idaho attorney general in their official capacities, alleging that the ban on political payroll deductions was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. App. 18–41.¹ The District Court rejected that argumentwith respect to public employers at the state level, concluding that the First Amendment does not compel the State “to subsidize speech by providing, at its own expense, payroll deductions for the purpose of paying union dues or association fees for State employees.” Pocatello Ed. Assn. v. Heideman, 2005 WL 3241745, *2 (D.Idaho, Nov. 23, 2005). The ban was valid at the state level because “the State is incurring costs to set up and maintain the [payroll deduction] program.” Ibid. The court struck down the VCA, however, “to the extent that it applies to local governments and private employers,” because the State had failed to identify any subsidy it provided to such employers to administer payroll deductions. Id., at *2 (footnote omitted), *6.

The state defendants appealed, contending that the ban on political payroll deductions may be constitutionally applied to local government employees. Pocatello Ed. Assn. v. Heideman, 504 F.3d 1053, 1057 (C.A.9 2007). Neither party challenged the District Court's rulings as to private and state-level employees, and therefore the only issue remaining concerned application of the ban to local government employees.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that there was “no subsidy by the State of Idaho for the payroll deduction systems of local governments.” Id., at 1059. The appellate court remarked that “the generalized lawmaking power held by the legislature with respect to a state's political subdivisions does not establish that the state is acting...