Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Taylor v. Heath

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Taylor v. Heath
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Aug. 22, 2019
District court decision:
Sept. 8, 2020
Appeals court decision:
July 15, 2021
Supreme Court decision: April 4, 2022
District court outcome
The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Appeals court outcome
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
Supreme Court outcome
Certiorari 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.

Taylor v. Heath was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on July 15, 2021. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan's September 2020 ruling in favor of the defendants.[1] In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, the plaintiff's claim challenged the constitutionality of the State Bar of Michigan membership and fee requirements and requested an injunction against enforcement of those requirements, as well as costs, attorney’s fees, and other expenses. In Janus, the Supreme Court held that public-sector unions cannot require non-members to pay fees to support unions' non-political activities. The Supreme Court denied review of Taylor v. Heath on April 4, 2022.[2][3][4][5]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Lucille S. Taylor. The defendants were members of the State Bar of Michigan Board of Commissioners.
  • The issue: In light of Janus v AFSCME, do the State Bar of Michigan membership and fee requirements violate First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and are they therefore unconstitutional?
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Robert Jonker presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge appellate panel included Sixth Circuit Judges Eugene Siler, Karen Moore, and Amul Thapar.
  • The outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan's ruling in favor of the defendants. The Supreme Court denied review.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Lucille S. Taylor. She was represented by the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation. The defendants were members of the State Bar of Michigan Board of Commissioners. They were represented by counsel from Bursch Law PLLC.[5]

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

    • August 22, 2019: The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
    • September 19, 2019: The defendants filed an answer to the plaintiff’s complaint.
    • May 15, 2020: The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.
    • June 15, 2020: The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
    • September 8, 2020: The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
    • October 6, 2020: The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
    • July 15, 2021: The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
    • September 1, 2021: The plaintiff filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • April 4, 2022: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On September 8, 2020, Judge Robert Jonker granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants.[2] He wrote:[6]

    “

    [T]he Court is satisfied that whatever wading [into the issues] needs to be done must happen in a higher Court because the Supreme Court has squarely decided the issues framed here in favor of the defendants. …

    Plaintiff accepts that Lathrop and Keller rejected the claims she is making here, but urges this Court to revisit them in light of a line of Supreme Court authority culminating in Janus that, according to Plaintiff, calls into question the continuing validity of the holdings. This Court has no power to do that.[7]

    		”

    Jonker was appointed to the court by George W. Bush (R).

    Appellate court decision

    On July 15, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit—Judges Eugene Siler, Karen Moore, and Amul Thapar—affirmed the district court's decision. Moore wrote:[1]

    “

    To Taylor’s credit, she acknowledges that Lathrop and Keller are an insurmountable hurdle if they remain good law. Taylor concedes that her compulsory membership in the State Bar of Michigan does not offend the First Amendment under either case. … And while the State Bar of Michigan does engage in advocacy germane to the legal profession, Taylor concedes that its activities do not cross the line set in Keller. … Instead, Taylor argues that Lathrop and Keller no longer bind this court because of intervening precedent in the form of Janus. […]

    Our cases are clear that we may not disregard Supreme Court precedent unless and until it has been overruled by the Court itself. … Even where intervening Supreme Court decisions have undermined the reasoning of an earlier decision, we must continue to follow the earlier case if it “directly controls” until the Court has overruled it. […]

    Here, the district court correctly concluded that Lathrop and Keller continue to bind the lower courts despite the Court’s ruling in Janus. [7]

    		”

    George H.W. Bush (R) nominated Siler to the court, Bill Clinton (D) nominated Moore, and Donald Trump (R) nominated Thapar.

    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.[8]

    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.[8]

    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."[8]

    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 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, "No. 20-2002," July 15, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 PacerMonitor, “Taylor v. State Bar of Michigan et al,” accessed September 29, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, "Lucille Taylor v. Robert Buchanan, et al," accessed September 29, 2021
    4. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Taylor v. State Bar: Complaint Seeking Declaratory & Injunctive Relief,” August 22, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 21-357 ," accessed April 5, 2022
    6. ↑ Mackinac Center, "Order," September 8, 2020
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 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=Taylor_v._Heath&oldid=9203488"