It’s the 12 Days of Ballotpedia! Your gift powers the trusted, unbiased information voters need heading into 2026. Donate now!

Smith v. Bieker

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Mark Smith v. Kate Bieker
Case number: 21-639
Status: Appealed to the Supreme Court
Important dates
Filed: Sept. 6, 2018
District court decision:
June 14, 2019
Appeals court decision:
July 29, 2021
Supreme Court decision:
Pending
District court outcome
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. The court ruled the plaintiffs did not have standing to seek a declaratory judgment regarding the constitutionality of California Government Code Section 71632.5, and even if they did, the claim would be moot.
Appeals court outcome
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
Supreme Court outcome
Pending

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.

Mark Smith v. Kate Bieker is a case pending appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.[1] On July 29, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's June 2019 dismissal of the plaintiff's claims. In light of the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME, the plaintiff challenged the continued deduction of dues subsequent to his resignation from union membership.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff is Mark Smith. The defendants are Kate Bieker and AFSCME Local 2700.
  • The issue: The plaintiff sought equitable relief, declaratory relief, equitable restitution, nominal damages, and other relief from AFSCME Local 2700.
  • The presiding judges: Judge Vince Girdhari Chhabria presided over the case in the district court. A three-judge appellate panel included Ninth Circuit Judges Mary Schroeder, Barry Silverman, and Mary Murguia.
  • The outcome: This case is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff is Mark Smith. He is represented by attorneys from the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation. The defendants are Kate Bieker and AFSCME Local 2700. They are represented by attorneys from Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong LLP; Beeson, Tayer & Bodine; and Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC.[2]

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[2][3][6][8][7][1]

    • October 4, 2018: Judge Vince Girdhari Chhabria denies plaintiff’s motion for temporary retraining order, stating, “Smith has not provided 'specific facts' explaining why it would be unlawful for the union to require him to complete an opt-out form to officially resign from the Union” among other reasons for motion denial.
    • November 16, 2018: Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied. Plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from continuing to deduct membership dues from his paychecks.
    • November 30, 2018: Xavier Becerra files a motion to intervene. Plaintiff files non-opposition to motion.
    • February 12, 2019: Defendant Kate Becker files motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for lack of jurisdiction.
    • June 14, 2019: Chhabria grants defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims, with prejudice.
    • July 12, 2019: Plaintiff appeals the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    • July 29, 2021: The Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's ruling.
    • October 27, 2021: The plaintiff files a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On June 13, 2019, Judge Vince Girdhari Chhabria dismissed the case, stating that the plaintiff did not have standing to seek a declaratory judgment regarding the constitutionality of the California Government codes he challenged. In addition, he ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to a refund of the dues that were deducted from his paychecks after his resignation from the union.[4] Chhabria entered a judgment in favor of the defendants on June 14.[5]

    President Barack Obama (D) nominated Chhabria to the court in 2013. He was confirmed by the Senate in 2014.[9][10]

    Appellate court decision

    On July 29, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—Judges Mary Schroeder, Barry Silverman, and Mary Murguia—affirmed the district court's decision:[7]

    “

    Summary judgment on Smith’s First Amendment claim against AFSCME Local 2700 was proper because the deduction of union membership dues arose from the private membership agreement between AFSCME Local 2700 and Smith, and “private dues agreements do not trigger state action and independent constitutional scrutiny.” Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940, 946-49 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-1120, 2021 WL 2519114 (June 21, 2021) (discussing state action).[11]

    		”

    President Jimmy Carter (D) nominated Schroeder to the court, President Bill Clinton (D) nominated Silverman, and President Barack Obama (D) nominated Murguia.

    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.[12]

    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.[12]

    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."[12]

    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

    Trial court

    Appeals court

    Supreme Court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 21-639," accessed December 3, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Pacer Monitor, "Smith v. Bieker, et al," accessed September 8, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Pacer Monitor, "Mark Smith v. Kate Bieker, et al," accessed September 8, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 PacerMonitor, "Order granting motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and granting intervenor's and defendants' motions for summary judgment," June 13, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 PacerMonitor, "Judgment," June 14, 2019
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 PacerMonitor, "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief," September 6, 2018
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "Memorandum," July 29, 2021
    8. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Order denying motion for temporary restraining order," October 4, 2018
    9. ↑ "Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate" 7/25/2013
    10. ↑ Senate.gov, "On the Nomination (Confirmation Vince Girdhari Chhabria, of California, to be U.S. District Judge)," March 5, 2014
    11. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 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=Smith_v._Bieker&oldid=9203528"