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

Miller v. Inslee

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Miller v. Inslee
Case number: 18-1492
Status: Terminated
Important dates
Filed: March 4, 2015
District court decision: October 13, 2016
Appeals court decision: February 26, 2019
District court outcome
Washington’s exclusive bargaining representation arrangement does not violate the First Amendment.
Appeals court outcome
Affirmed the district court's decision.

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.

Miller v. Inslee was denied certiorari review by the Supreme Court of the United States on October 7, 2019. The suit challenged the constitutionality of Washington’s Access to Quality Family Child Care Act, which authorized the Service Employees International Union as the exclusive bargaining representative for the plaintiffs, non-union member partial-public child care employees.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Katherine Miller. The defendants were Gov. Jay Inslee (D), Cheryl Strange, David Schumacher, and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 925.
  • The issue: Does Washington’s exclusive bargaining representation arrangement violate the First Amendment?
  • The outcome: Washington’s Access to Quality Family Child Care Act, authorizing SEIU as an exclusive bargaining representative, does not violate the First Amendment.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Katherine Miller. She was represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The defendants were Gov. Jay Inslee (D), Cheryl Strange, David Schumacher, and SEIU Local 925. Jay Inslee, Cheryl Strange, and David Schumacher were represented by the Washington State Office of the Attorney General. SEIU Local 925 was represented by Altshuler Berzon, LLP.

    The plaintiffs in Miller v. Inslee first filed their lawsuit on March 4, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs, all partial-public employees, argued that the designation of SEIU as their exclusive representative, despite the plaintiffs being non-union members, violated their First Amendment rights. Additionally, the plaintiffs questioned the constitutionality of the Access to Quality Family Child Care Act, which authorized public child care employees to elect an exclusive bargaining representative.[1]

    • March 4, 2015: Plaintiffs Cynthia Mentele, Katherine Miller, Irvina Mizell, and Roxanne Pera filed a complaint against Jay Inslee, David Schumacher, SEIU Local 925, and Kevin Quigley.
    • October 16, 2015: The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Plaintiffs Irvina Mizell and Roxanne Pera were removed from the suit.
    • March 17, 2016: The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and the State defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
    • April 4, 2016: The plaintiffs filed a cross motion for summary judgment.
    • May 26, 2016: The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and motions for summary judgment, and dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims, except for Mentele’s additional claim that sought reimbursement for past union dues.
    • October 11, 2016: The plaintiffs filed a joint motion for judgment, asking the court to dismiss the remaining claim. Additionally, Plaintiff Cynthia Mentele was dismissed from the suit voluntarily.
    • October 13, 2016: The court entered a judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the suit.
    • November 10, 2016: Plaintiff Katherine Miller appealed the suit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    • February 22, 2017: Miller filed an opening brief.
    • April 19, 2017: The defendants filed an answering brief.
    • December 3, 2018: The appeals court held oral arguments.
    • February 26, 2019: The appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision.
    • May 24, 2019: Miller filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. Defendant Kevin Quigley was removed from the suit.
    • June 14, 2019: The Pacific Legal Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief.
    • July 16, 2019: The Buckeye Institute and the Cato Institute filed an amicus curiae brief.
    • July 18, 2019: The Goldwater Institute filed an amicus curiae brief.
    • August 27, 2019: The defendants filed opposition briefs.
    • October 7, 2019: The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.


    For a list of available case documents, click here.


    Decision

    On May 26, 2016, Judge Ronald Leighton granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissal. Leighton wrote the following in the court's opinion:

    “ Harris, which is merely tangential to the constitutionality of exclusive representation, does not supplant Knight. Nor does it constrain Knight’s applicability by creating a constitutional right for partial-state employees to compel an individual government audience. When deciding Knight, the Supreme Court mined for such a right. It announced that members of the general public do not have it. Neither do public employees. Neither do public employees working in academic institutions. So too, neither do state-subsidized child care providers… The Access Act neither restrains child care providers’ right to speak nor requires them to join the democratically-elected representative group. It also does not impinge their right to be heard over another, because the Constitution affords no such right. Miller cannot demonstrate an infringement of any First Amendment right.[2][3] ”
    —Judge Ronald Leighton

    Ronald Leighton was appointed to the court in 2002 by President George W. Bush (R).

    On February 26, 2019, a three-judge panel, comprising Judges Susan Graber, Margaret McKeown, and Morgan Christen unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. Christen wrote the following in the court's opinion:

    “ Janus suggested that exclusive bargaining representative does significantly impinge on associational freedoms, but in the same breath, the Court stated that this degree of impingement is justified or “tolerated” in the context of collective bargaining agents. Janus explained that “States can keep their labor-relations systems exactly as they are”; they just “cannot force nonmembers to subsidize public-sector unions,”… Miller contends that we are bound by Janus’s observation that exclusive union representation of non-union members impinges First Amendment rights. Appellees contend that Knight controls because Janus’s reference to exclusive representation is dictum unnecessary to Janus’s primary holding. We conclude that the Supreme Court’s holding in Knight is the most appropriate guide… We acknowledge that Knight’s recognition that a state cannot be forced to negotiate or meet with individual employees is arguably distinct from Miller’s contention that employees’ associational rights are implicated when a state recognizes an exclusive bargaining representative with which non-union employees disagree… Despite these differences, Knight is a closer fit than Janus…. We apply Knight’s more directly applicable precedent, rather than relying on the passage Miller cites from Janus, and hold that Washington’s authorization of an exclusive bargaining representative does not infringe Miller’s First Amendment rights.[4]

    [3]

    		”
    —Judge Morgan Christen

    Susan Graber and Margaret McKeown were both appointed to the court in 1998 by President Bill Clinton (D). Morgan Christen was appointed to the court in 2011 by President Barack Obama (D).

    On October 07, 2019, The Supreme Court of the United States denied the plaintiff’s petition for a writ of certiorari.

    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.[5]

    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.[5]

    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."[5]

    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 CourtListener, “Complaint - Class Action,” accessed May 20, 2020
    2. ↑ CourtListener, “Order Granting Defendants’ Summary Judgement Motions,” accessed May 20, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    4. ↑ CourtListener, “Opinion,” accessed May 20, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 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=Miller_v._Inslee&oldid=9203572"