Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Belgau v. Inslee

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Belgau v. Inslee
Case number: 20-1120
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Aug. 2, 2018
District court decision:
Feb. 19, 2019
Appeals court decision:
Sept. 16, 2020
Supreme Court decision:
June 21, 2021
District court outcome
Public-sector unions and Washington state cannot be held liable for refunding union dues after union membership withdrawal if there is a pre-existing agreement for fees deduction throughout a given time period.
Appeals court outcome
District court decision affirmed.
Supreme Court outcome
Certiorari review denied.

This case is one of over a hundred public-sector union lawsuits Ballotpedia tracked following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME. These pages were updated through February 2023 and may not reflect subsequent case developments. For more information about Ballotpedia's coverage of public-sector union policy in the United States, click here. Contact our team to suggest an update.

Belgau v. Inslee was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 16, 2020. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington's February 2019 dismissal of the suit. After the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of a collective bargaining agreement authorized by Washington state law that restricted the terms under which union members could resign their membership and cease paying dues. The Supreme Court denied certiorari review of the decision on June 21, 2021.[1][2][3][4][5]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The lead plaintiff was Melissa Belgau. The lead defendant was Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) in his official capacity.
  • The issue: In light of Janus v. AFSCME, can public-sector unions be held liable for refunding union dues after union membership withdrawal if there was a pre-existing agreement for fees deduction throughout a given time period, regardless of membership status?
  • The presiding judge: Judge Robert Bryan presided over the case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Judges M. Margaret McKeown, Morgan Christen, and M. Douglas Harpool presided over the case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • The outcome: Bryan dismissed the suit on February 19, 2019. That decision was affirmed by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 16, 2020. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari review on June 21, 2021.

    • Procedural history

    The lead plaintiff was Melissa Belgau, represented by counsel from the Freedom Foundation. The lead defendant was Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), represented by counsel from the Office of the Washington Attorney General (Olympia). For a complete list of plaintiffs and defendants in this suit, click here.

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4][5]

    • August 2, 2018: The plaintiffs first filed their lawsuit on August 2, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (case number 3:18-cv-05620). The plaintiffs initially filed a claim that challenged the constitutionality of union fee deduction agreements, made prior to Janus v. AFSCME, allowing continued fee deductions throughout a given time, regardless of membership status. They challenged the legality of the agreements on the basis of First Amendment rights violations. The plaintiffs requested an injunction against enforcement of the above agreements, compensatory damages in the amount of all union fees collected since employment or in the amount deducted since Janus, mental anguish damages and restitution, punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.
    • August 5, 2018: The defendants filed a response to the plaintiffs’ complaint.
    • August 23, 2018: The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
    • September 6, 2018: The defendants filed answers to the plaintiffs' amended complaint.
    • September 13, 2018: The plaintiffs motioned for a preliminary injunction.
    • October 11, 2018: The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
    • December 21, 2018: The defendants filed motions for summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in their favor.
    • February 15, 2019: The court issued an order and summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The official judgment was issued on February 19, 2019, and the case was terminated.
    • February 20, 2019: The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (case number 0:19-cv-35137).
    • April 22, 2019: The plaintiffs submitted an opening brief for the appeal.
    • July 19, 2019: The defendants submitted answering briefs for the appeal.
    • September 11, 2019: The plaintiffs filed a reply brief for the appeal.
    • December 10, 2019: A hearing was held, and oral arguments were heard.
    • September 16, 2020: A three-judge appellate panel affirmed the district court's decision.
    • February 11, 2021: The plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • June 21, 2021: The Supreme Court denied certiorari review.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On February 15, 2019, Judge Robert Bryan granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Bryan wrote the following in the court's opinion:[4]

    “

    The plain language of RCW 41.80.100 and the CBA do not compel involuntary dues deductions and do not violate the First Amendment. The parties do not dispute that all the Plaintiffs here signed the membership agreements and that they did not need to do so as a condition of their employment. The parties do not dispute that the State plays no role in deciding what terms and conditions are in the membership agreements; and under state law, cannot participate in any way in making those determinations. The State’s deduction of dues from the Plaintiffs’ pay is pursuant to the Plaintiffs’ explicit written instructions in the 2017 agreements. The fact that the Plaintiffs are now challenging the constitutional validity of the underlying agreements does not lead to liability for the State, especially where the State is prohibited from interfering with Union activity. Further, Plaintiffs’ assertions that the agreements are not valid because they had not waived their First Amendment rights under Janus in their authorization agreements because they did not know of those rights yet, is without merit. Plaintiffs seek a broad expansion of the holding in Janus. Janus does not apply here – Janus was not a union member, unlike the Plaintiffs here, and Janus did not agree to a dues deduction, unlike the Plaintiffs here. See Cooley v. California Statewide Law Enforcement Ass’n, 2019 WL 331170, at 2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2019). “The relationship between unions and their voluntary members was not at issue in Janus.” Id. The notion that the Plaintiffs may have made a different choice if they knew “the Supreme Court would later invalidate public employee agency fee arrangements [in Janus] does not void” their previous knowing agreements. Id.

    To the extent that the Plaintiffs now argue that the membership agreement was not supported by consideration, is invalid due to mistake, was made under duress, or make some other assertion of validity based on contract law, they make no showing that the State Defendants are now liable under the First Amendment for those alleged failings. To do so would require the State Defendants to make a judgment about the validity of the contracts the Union and its members choose to enter, something the State is prohibited from doing. The State is not a party to the membership agreement.[6]

    		”

    Bryan was appointed by President Ronald Reagan (R).

    Appellate court decision

    On September 16, 2020, a three-judge appellate panel affirmed the district court's decision. Ninth Circuit Judges M. Margaret McKeown and Morgan Christen, and U.S. District Judge M. Douglas Harpool, were unanimous in their decision. McKeown wrote the court's opinion.[7]

    In response to the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims, McKeown wrote the following:[7]

    “ The First Amendment does not support Employees' right to renege on their promise to join and support the union. This promise was made in the context of a contractual relationship between the union and its employees. When 'legal obligations ... are self-imposed,' state law, not the First Amendment, normally governs.[6] ”

    McKeown then addressed the plaintiffs' claims within the context of Janus:[7]

    “ Janus did not alter these basic tenets of the First Amendment. The dangers of compelled speech animate Janus. ... The Court underscored that the pernicious nature of compelled speech extends to '[c]ompelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable' by forcing them to subsidize that speech. ... For that reason, the Court condemned the practice of 'automatically deduct[ing]' agency fees from nonmembers who were 'not asked' and 'not required to consent before the fees are deducted.'

    Employees, who are union members, experienced no such compulsion. Under Washington law, Employees were free to 'join' WFSE or 'refrain' from participating in union activities.[6]

    		”

    Christen and Harpool were appointed by President Barack Obama (D). McKeown was appointed by President Bill Clinton (D).

    After the decision, Freedom Foundation attorney James Abernathy said the plaintiffs would appeal to either the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc or the U.S. Supreme Court.[8]

    The Supreme Court denied certiorari review on June 21, 2021.[5]

    Legal context

    Janus v. AFSCME (2018)

    See also: Janus v. AFSCME

    On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 5-4 decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (Janus v. AFSCME), ruling that public-sector unions cannot compel non-member employees to pay fees to cover the costs of non-political union activities.[9]

    This decision overturned precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education in 1977. In Abood, the high court held that it was not a violation of employees' free-speech and associational rights to require them to pay fees to support union activities from which they benefited (e.g., collective bargaining, contract administration, etc.). These fees were commonly referred to as agency fees or fair-share fees.[9]

    Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion for the court majority in Janus, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. Alito wrote, "Abood was poorly reasoned. It has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions. Developments since Abood was handed down have shed new light on the issue of agency fees, and no reliance interests on the part of public-sector unions are sufficient to justify the perpetuation of the free speech violations that Abood has countenanced for the past 41 years. Abood is therefore overruled."[9]

    Related litigation

    To view a complete list of the public-sector labor lawsuits Ballotpedia tracked between 2019 and 2023, click here.

    Number of federal lawsuits by circuit

    Between 2019 and 2023, Ballotpedia tracked 191 federal lawsuits related to public-sector labor laws. The chart below depicts the number of suits per federal judicial circuit (i.e., the jurisdictions in which the suits originated).

    Public-sector labor lawsuits on Ballotpedia

    See also: Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-2023

    Click show to view a list of cases with links to our in-depth coverage.

    v • e
    Public-sector labor lawsuits
    Federal lawsuits

    Adams v. Teamsters Union Local 429 • Akers v. Maryland State Education Association • Aliser v. SEIU California • Allen v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association • Allen v. Santa Clara County Correctional • Anderson v. SEIU Local 503 • Babb v. California Teachers Association • Baisley v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers • Belgau v. Inslee • Bennett v. AFSCME • Bermudez v. SEIU Local 521 • Bierman v. Dayton • Boudreaux v. Louisiana State Bar • Boyle v. SEIU California • Brice v. California Faculty Association • California v. Azar • Campos v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association • Carey v. Inslee • Casanova v. IAM Local 701 • Chandavong et al. v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association et al. • Cook v. Brown • Cooley v. California Statewide Law Enforcement Association • Crowe v. Oregon State Bar • Cruz v. Union Independiente Autentica de Empleados de la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados • Danielson v. Inslee • Diamond v. Pennsylvania State Education Association • Doughty v. State Employees Association of New Hampshire, SEIU, Local 1984 • Durst v. OEA • Few v. United Teachers Los Angeles • File v. Hickey • Fischer v. Murphy • Fisk v. Inslee • Fizer v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees • Fleck v. Wetch • Grega v. Council of New Jersey State College Locals • Grossman v. Hawaii Government Employees Association • Gruber v. Oregon State Bar • Guppy v. City of Los Angeles • Halloran v. AFSCME Council 5 • Hamidi v. SEIU • Hannay v. Kent State • Hartnett v. Penn. State Education Association • Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18 • Hernandez v. AFSCME California • Hoekman v. Education Minnesota • Hough v. SEIU Local 521 • Imhoff v. California Teachers Association • Jackson v. Napolitano • James v. SEIU Local 688 • Janus v. AFSCME • Jarchow v. Wisconsin • Kabler v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1776 Keystone State • Wenzig v. SEIU Local 668 • Kopie v. International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees • Kurk v. Los Rios Classified Employees Association • Lamberty et al. v. Connecticut State Police Union et al. • LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council • Lee v. Ohio Education Association • Leitch v. AFSCME • Littler v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees • Loescher v. Teamsters Local 320 • Lutter v. JNESO • Mandel v. SEIU Local 73 • Marsh v. AFSCME Local 3299 • Martin v. California Teachers Association • Masuo v. AFSCME AFL-CIO • Matthews v. United Teachers of Los Angeles • Mattos v. AFSCME Council 3 • Mayer v. Wallingford-Swathmore School District • McCain v. Ventura County Federation of College Teachers, AFT Local 1828 • McCollum v. NEA-Alaska • McCutcheon v. CWA Local 7076 • McDonald v. Firth • Mendez v. CTA • Miller v. Inslee • Misja v. PSEA • Molina v. SEIU Local 668 • Mooney v. Illinois Education Association • Nearman v. SEIU Local 503 • Neely v. AFSCME Council 13 • Nguyen v. Admin. and Residual Employees Union • Nichols v. Home Care Providers Union • O'Callaghan v. Drake • Ochoa v. Public Consulting Group • Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union • Ogle v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11 • Oliver v. SEIU Local 668 • Pellegrino v. New York State United Teachers • Penning v. SEIU Local 1021 • Polk v. Yee • Popp v. ALPAI • Piekarski v. AFSCME Council 5 • Quirarte v. UDW AFSCME Local 3930 • Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine • Rizzo-Rupon v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 141 • Routh v. Inslee • Schaszberger v. AFSCME Council 13 • Schell v. Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices • Schumaker v. Inslee • Seager v. UTLA • Seidemann v. Professional Staff Congress • Smith v. AFSCME Council No. 8 • Smith v. New Jersey Education Association • Smith v. Bieker • Solomon v. AFSCME District Council 37 • Stroeder v. Service Employees International Union, Local 503 • Sweeney v. Raoul • Sweet v. California Association of Psychiatric Technicians • Taylor v. Heath • Thompson v. AFSCME Council 89, Local 4013 • Thompson v. Marietta Education Association • Thulen v. AFSCME • Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Org. • Utke v. University of Connecticut American Association of University Professors • Weyandt v. PSCOA • Wholean v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001 • Wilford v. National Education Association • Williams v. PSEA • Wolf v. University Professional & Technical Employees • Yates v. Hillsboro Unified School District • Yohn v. California Teachers Association

    See also

    External links

    Case documents

    Supreme Court

    Appeals court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 PacerMonitor, “Belgau et al v. Inslee et al,” accessed August 6, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 PacerMonitor, “Melissa Belgau, et al v. Jay Inslee, et al,” accessed August 6, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, "Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Judgment, and Damages - Class Action," August 2, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 PacerMonitor, "Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment," February 15, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 20-1120," accessed August 6, 2021
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "Belgau v. Inslee: Opinion," September 16, 2020
    8. ↑ The San Francisco Chronicle, "Public employees who leave a union can’t claw back dues, court rules," September 16, 2020
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al., June 27, 2018
    v • e
    Public-sector union policy in the United States
    Public-sector union policy in the United StatesBPstarlogo.png
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Belgau_v._Inslee&oldid=9203542"