Jarchow v. Wisconsin: Difference between revisions

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
|Appeals court outcome=The judgment of the district court was summarily affirmed.
|Appeals court outcome=The judgment of the district court was summarily affirmed.
}}
}}
{{Public-sector labor lawsuits mothball}}
'''''Jarchow v. Wisconsin''''' was submitted to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] on December 31, 2019. The petitioners asked the court to overturn ''Lathrop v. Donohue'' and ''Keller v. State Bar of California'', decisions which allow mandatory State Bar membership for lawyers, in light of the Supreme Court ruling that prevented public-sector unions from requiring non-members to pay union fees in ''[[Janus_v._AFSCME|Janus v. AFSCME]]''.<ref name=Complaint>[https://www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/1-2019-04-08-complaint.pdf ''Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty'', “Civil Rights Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages,” accessed April 30, 2020]</ref> The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on June 1, 2020.<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-831_5425.pdf ''Supreme Court of United States'', "Adam Jarchow, et al. v. State Bar of Wisconsin, et al.," June 1, 2020]</ref>  
'''''Jarchow v. Wisconsin''''' was submitted to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] on December 31, 2019. The petitioners asked the court to overturn ''Lathrop v. Donohue'' and ''Keller v. State Bar of California'', decisions which allow mandatory State Bar membership for lawyers, in light of the Supreme Court ruling that prevented public-sector unions from requiring non-members to pay union fees in ''[[Janus_v._AFSCME|Janus v. AFSCME]]''.<ref name=Complaint>[https://www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/1-2019-04-08-complaint.pdf ''Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty'', “Civil Rights Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages,” accessed April 30, 2020]</ref> The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on June 1, 2020.<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-831_5425.pdf ''Supreme Court of United States'', "Adam Jarchow, et al. v. State Bar of Wisconsin, et al.," June 1, 2020]</ref>  


Revision as of 10:16, 23 February 2023

Jarchow v. Wisconsin
Case number: 19-831
Status: Closed.
Important dates
Filed: April 8, 2019
District court decision:
Dec. 11, 2019
Appeals court decision:
Dec. 23, 2019
Supreme Court declined:
June 1, 2020
District court outcome
Under Keller v. State Bar of California, Wisconsin attorneys must join the State Bar as a condition of practicing law if the speech subsidized by membership dues is related to the legal profession.
Appeals court outcome
The judgment of the district court was summarily affirmed.

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.

Jarchow v. Wisconsin was submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on December 31, 2019. The petitioners asked the court to overturn Lathrop v. Donohue and Keller v. State Bar of California, decisions which allow mandatory State Bar membership for lawyers, in light of the Supreme Court ruling that prevented public-sector unions from requiring non-members to pay union fees in Janus v. AFSCME.[1] The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on June 1, 2020.[2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were lawyers Adam Jarchow and Michael D. Dean. The defendants were the State Bar of Wisconsin, the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors, Christopher Rogers, Jill Kastner, and Kathleen Brost.
  • The issue: Is mandatory State Bar membership unconstitutional, just as mandatory public employee union membership is unconstitutional under Janus?
  • The outcome: The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs’ challenges failed under Keller v. State Bar of California. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the lower court.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were lawyers Adam Jarchow and Michael D. Dean. They were represented by Baker & Hostetler LLP and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. The defendants were the State Bar of Wisconsin, the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors, Christopher Rogers, Jill Kastner, and Kathleen Brost. They were represented by Foley & Lardner LLP.

    The plaintiffs in Jarchow v. Wisconsin first filed their lawsuit on April 8, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs argued that the State Bar of Wisconsin, which attorneys must join to practice law, used membership dues to fund lobbying on matters of legislation and public policy such as felon voting rights, the death penalty, and tax reforms. Although the State Bar allowed dues deductions for members to opt out of subsidizing “nonchargeable” lobbying activities, the plaintiffs argued that much of the State Bar’s speech on issues of public interest and concern was deemed “chargeable” with no opt-out provisions for members. Thus the plaintiffs argued that their “compelled association” with the Bar’s speech was a violation of their First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs asked the court for an end to their compelled membership to the State Bar, as well as refunds for all membership dues collected[1]. Subsequently, Jarchow and Dean asked the Supreme Court to overturn Lathrop v. Donohue and Keller v. State for its incompatibility with Janus v. AFSCME.

    • April 8, 2019: Adam Jarchow and Michael D. Dean filed a complaint against the State Bar of Wisconsin, the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors, Christopher E. Rogers, Jill M. Kastner, Starlyn R. Tourtillott, John E. Danner, Odalo J. Ohiku, Paul G. Swanson, Kathleen A. Brost, Kori L. Ashley, and Eric L. Andrews.
    • May 21, 2019: The State Bar asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that Keller v. State Bar of California decided that speech by State Bar associations in subjects relevant to the practice of law did not violate the First Amendment.[3] In the absence of a dismissal, the defendants asked the court to stay proceedings until a similar case in the Eighth Circuit with possible repercussions for the suit, Fleck v. Wetch, was decided.[4]
    • May 30, 2019: The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to stay the case.[5]
    • May 31, 2019: The court granted the motion to stay proceedings in part, ruling to stay proceedings only until the motion to dismiss was decided.
    • September 13, 2019: The defendants reported that the recent decision in Fleck upheld the requirement for lawyers to join the State Bar and pay membership dues, and argued that the Fleck decision should lead the court to dismiss the suit.[6]
    • September 23, 2019: The court substituted certain defendants who held public offices with newly appointed officeholders. Jill M. Kastner and Kathleen A. Brost were added as defendants. Odalo J. Ohiku, John E. Danner, and Paul G. Swanson were removed as defendants.
    • December 11, 2019: The court dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs’ challenges failed under Keller v. State Bar of California.[7]
    • December 13, 2019: The plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
    • December 16, 2019: The plaintiffs asked the court for summary affirmance.
    • December 23, 2019: The judgment of the district court was summarily affirmed.
    • December 31, 2019: The plaintiffs filed a writ of certiorari petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States to hear their case.[8]
    • January 29, 2020: Lawyers United Inc. filed an amicus curiae in support of the plaintiffs.
    • January 30, 2020: Pacific Legal Foundation filed an amicus curiae in support of the plaintiffs.
    • January 31, 2020: Liberty Justice Center & Mackinac Center filed an amicus curiae in support of the plaintiffs.
    • February 3, 2020: The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus curiae in support of the plaintiffs. Additionally, State Public Policy Organizations filed an amicus curiae in support of the plaintiffs.
    • April 3, 2020: The defendants filed a brief in opposition to the amicus curiae. Additionally, the plaintiffs filed a reply to the brief in opposition.
    • June 1, 2020: The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

    On December 11, 2019, Judge Barbara Crabb dismissed the suit. Crabb wrote the following in the court's opinion:

    “ It may be, as plaintiffs contend, that the Court’s decision in Janus has eroded the foundation of Keller. However, both sides agree that Keller still binds this court and that only the Supreme Court can say otherwise. The Supreme Court has made it clear that “if a precedent of this Court has a direct application in a case [here, Keller], yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, [lower courts] should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Because this court is bound by Keller, and because the parties agree that plaintiffs’ challenges fail under Keller, plaintiff’s claims fail in this court.[7][9] ”

    Crabb was appointed to the court in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter (D).

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

    On December 23, 2019, Judges Joel Flaum, Frank Easterbrook, and Michael Scudder affirmed the decision of the lower court after the plaintiffs asked for summary affirmance.

    Flaum was appointed to the court in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan (R). Easterbrook was appointed to the court in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan (R). Scudder was appointed to the court in 2018 by President Donald Trump (R).

    Arguments

    Jarchow and Dean’s arguments

    Jarchow and Dean argued that dues paid to the State Bar, which they were compelled to join in order to practice law, were used to subsidize speech on matters of public concern. This requirement to monetarily subsidize the State Bar’s speech violated their First Amendment rights in the same manner that compelled payments to labor unions violated the constitutional rights of public employees, as condemned by Janus v. AFSCME'. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argued that the speech subsidized by State Bar membership dues is inherently political and moreso a violation of First Amendment rights than the speech of labor unions at issue in Janus. Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that lawyers were compelled to join the State Bar to practice law, where public employees in Janus were not required to join unions. Therefore, Jarchow and Dean argued that Janus v. AFSCME set a precedent for the court to end the requirements for attorneys to join State Bar associations, and to overrule two previous cases which they claim were incompatible with Janus, Lathrop v. Donohue and Keller v. State Bar of California.[8]

    State Bar of Wisconsin, et al’s arguments

    The defendants argued that Jarchow and Dean failed to establish the inadequacy of the State Bar’s dues reduction procedure. The State Bar allowed for dues deductions, known as Keller Dues Reductions, for members who wished to opt out of subsidizing “nonchargeable” lobbying activities for speech unrelated to the regulation of the legal profession. There was also a procedure for members to challenge the amount of Keller Dues Reductions if they believed a speech activity was incorrectly deemed “chargeable” by the State Bar. The defendants alleged that these procedures allowed lawyers to opt out of speech they disagreed with, and therefore mandatory State Bar membership did not violate First Amendment rights. Additionally, the Wisconsin State Bar et al contended that Lathrop and Keller were not altered by Janus and were well-established decisions. Furthermore, the defendants argued that this case was not well-suited as a vehicle to challenge Lathrop and Keller because the plaintiffs failed to argue that mandatory State Bar membership was unconstitutional if Lathrop and Keller remained good law.[10]

    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.[11]

    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.[11]

    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."[11]

    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

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, “Civil Rights Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages,” accessed April 30, 2020
    2. ↑ Supreme Court of United States, "Adam Jarchow, et al. v. State Bar of Wisconsin, et al.," June 1, 2020
    3. ↑ Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, “Defendants’ Brief in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint,” accessed April 30, 2020
    4. ↑ Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, “Defendant’s Brief in Support of Their Motion to Stay Further Proceedings,” accessed April 30, 2020
    5. ↑ Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, “Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Stay Motion,” accessed April 30, 2020
    6. ↑ Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, “Defendant’s Provision of Supplemental Authority in Support of their Motion to Dismiss,” accessed April 30, 2020
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, "Opinion and Order," December 11, 2019
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Supreme Court of the United States, “Petition for a Writ of Certiorari,” accessed April 30, 2020
    9. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, “Respondents’ Brief in Opposition to Petition for Certiorari,” accessed April 30, 2020
    11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 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=Jarchow_v._Wisconsin&oldid=9079678"