Law & Courts

Justices Weigh Bar on Payroll Deductions for Politics

By Mark Walsh — November 10, 2008 4 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The U.S. Supreme Court last week heard arguments in a case that is the latest challenge to one of the ways teachers’ unions amass their political war chests.

At issue is an Idaho law that prohibits school districts and other local governments from using their payroll systems to let workers voluntarily deduct amounts from their paychecks for political causes, such as for the unions’ political action funds.

The Idaho Education Association, its Pocatello affiliate, and several other public-employee unions in the state challenged the provision of the state’s Voluntary Contributions Act as an infringement of their First Amendment rights of free speech and association. The restriction would “significantly decrease the revenues available” to the state teachers’ union for political activities, its executive director said in earlier proceedings in the case.

The Idaho statute “is a content-based restriction on speech, which is therefore presumptively invalid,” Jeremiah A. Collins, a Washington lawyer representing the unions, said during the Nov. 3 arguments in Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association (Case No. 07-869).

The law says “the only expenditure you can’t make through payroll deduction is for political activities,” Mr. Collins said. “And ... the only resource of an employer that can’t be used for any kind of political activity is payroll deduction, this being in a statute targeted at employee support of union activity.”

Clay R. Smith, Idaho’s deputy attorney general, told the justices that the case raised issues of the state’s sovereignty over the operations of its political subdivisions.

The goal of the law is “to avoid either the appearance or the reality of public-employer involvement in ... electoral politics,” he said.

‘Collection Service’?

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled unanimously in October 2007 that the Idaho provision—as applied to local-government employers—burdens the unions’ political speech in violation of the First Amendment.

The law hampers unions’ participation in political activities “by making the collection of funds for that purpose more difficult,” the 9th Circuit court said.

The state’s appeal was backed by a number of groups that battle unions on several fronts, including over the right of teachers’ unions to deduct member dues, nonmember service fees, and political donations from employee paychecks.

A friend-of-the-court brief filed on the state’s side by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and other groups argues that government-facilitated payroll deductions actually amount to a subsidy to the unions, which the brief says violates the rights of the state’s citizens.

The “overriding issue” is “whether government payroll systems must provide a public collection service for private political associations that use the collected funds to facilitate political speech that many of their own members and taxpayers oppose,” says the brief by the National Right to Work group, which is based in Springfield, Va.

Two other states—Ohio and Utah—have similar laws.

A federal appeals court upheld Ohio’s ban on such “checkoffs” in 1998. Utah’s law was struck down earlier this year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, although that court has delayed the effect of its decision pending the outcome of the Idaho case.

On Election Day last week, Oregon voters were faced, for the third time in 10 years, with a ballot initiative that would bar such political checkoffs in their state. The measure was losing by a razor-thin margin, with ballots still being counted late last week.

Charity Contributions

In the Idaho case, the unions’ arguments appeared to get support from some of the justices at the Nov. 3 oral arguments.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned whether in practice the law only restricts paycheck deductions for political contributions to organized labor.

“It seems that what is burdened by the statute is union speech,” she said.

Justice John Paul Stevens asked the state’s lawyer whether local governments could allow deductions for employees’ contributions to “united fund” charities. Those wouldn’t be political causes barred by the statute, Mr. Smith said.

“But why differentiate political activity from charity contributions?” Justice Stevens asked.

But Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that the state’s differential treatment of paycheck deductions for politics “doesn’t seem to me particularly discriminatory” because the beneficiary—public-employee unions—is “a narrow class that has a special benefit.”

In 2007, Justice Scalia wrote the unanimous opinion in Davenport v. Washington Education Association, which upheld a Washington state law that made it more difficult for teachers’ unions to raise political funds through checkoffs. (“High Court Upholds Wash. State Law on Union Fees,” June 20, 2007.)

A decision in the Idaho case is expected by June.

A version of this article appeared in the November 12, 2008 edition of Education Week as Justices Weigh Bar on Payroll Deductions for Politics


Jobs Virtual Career Fair for Teachers and K-12 Staff
Find teaching jobs and other jobs in K-12 education at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts How a Supreme Court Case on Job Transfers Will Impact Schools
The justices consider whether workers alleging employment discrimination must show that a lateral job transfer harmed them.
8 min read
Photograph of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington DC, USA.
Law & Courts Wisconsin Teachers Sue to Restore Collective Bargaining Rights
The lawsuit takes fresh aim at a 2011 law that severely restricted bargaining, and has survived several legal challenges since.
6 min read
Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) vice president Betsy Kippers leads a chant during a rally to protest Governor Scott Walker's budget repair bill, at the Brown County Courthouse in downtown Green Bay on February 16, 2011.
Betsy Kippers, vice president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council, leads a chant during a rally to protest Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill, at the Brown County Courthouse in downtown Green Bay on February 16, 2011.
H. Marc Larson/The Green Bay Press-Gazette via AP
Law & Courts What Sandra Day O'Connor Did to Shape School Law and Civics Education
O'Connor wrote influential opinions on affirmative action, Title IX, and other education issues. Then she tirelessly worked on civics.
10 min read
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor listens as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pays tribute to O'Connor's advocacy work on behalf of civic education, impact on female judges and justice for women and girls worldwide at the Seneca Women Global Leadership Forum at the National Museum of Women in the Arts, on April 15, 2015 in Washington.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor listens to a tribute to her advocacy work on behalf of civics education and women's role in the legal profession at the National Museum of Women in the Arts, on April 15, 2015, in Washington.
Kevin Wolf/Invision for Seneca Women via AP Images
Law & Courts U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Major Gun Case With School Safety in Backdrop
The principle that guns may be barred from schools may bolster a federal law restricting firearm possession by domestic abusers.
6 min read
Gun safety and domestic violence prevention organizations gather outside of the Supreme Court before oral arguments are heard in United States v. Rahimi on Nov. 7, 2023, in Washington.
Gun safety and domestic violence prevention organizations gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court before oral arguments are heard in <i>United States</i> v. <i>Rahimi</i> on Nov. 7, 2023, in Washington.
Stephanie Scarbrough/AP