On April 28, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued decisions in three cases we’re tracking related to public-sector union policy. In each case, the judges upheld the decision of the district court. 

About the cases 

The panel—Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Paez, U.S. Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, and Chief U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota John Tunheim—heard oral arguments for all three cases on Feb. 8. The three judges also heard arguments in six other relevant cases in which decisions have not yet been issued. At least three other appellate cases are on hold pending the outcome of cases heard on Feb. 8.

Here’s a rundown of the three decisions: 

Cooley v. California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

• Appeal from: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California 
• Original complaint: Nov. 13, 2018
• Plaintiff’s representation: Benbrook Law Group, Mitchell Law, and Talcott Franklin  
• District judge: John A. Mendez
• District court ruling: July 9, 2019
• Summary of the appeal: “Appeal from the dismissal of an action alleging First Amendment violations in connection with plaintiff’s attempts to resign from his union membership.” 
• From the panel’s decision: “The district court properly found that Cooley’s membership application met the essential elements of a contract. …The district court properly found Cooley was bound to maintain union membership until June 1, 2019 under the maintenance of membership provision in the CBA. … The district court properly concluded that Cooley does not have a First Amendment right to resign from his union. Although the freedom of association contained within the First Amendment includes the freedom against compelled associations, none of the cases cited to the district court or to this Court establish that there is a constitutional right to end voluntary contractual associations. … Cooley agreed to become a member of CSLEA subject to the stated membership resignation limitations and the First Amendment cannot and does not erase that voluntary Association.”  

O’Callaghan v. Napolitano

• Appeal from: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California 
• Original complaint: March 27, 2019
• Plaintiffs’ representation: Law Office of Mark W. Bucher and Liberty Justice Center
• District judge: James V. Selna 
• District court ruling: Sept. 30, 2019
• Summary of the appeal: “An appeal from the district court’s dismissal of an action brought by two employees of the University of California alleging that the continued deduction of their union dues violated their First Amendment rights.” 
• From the panel’s decision: “The trial court correctly determined that the Defendants did not violate Appellants’ First Amendment rights. Although the First Amendment protects against compelled association, it does not permit one to renege on voluntary agreements. … Appellants affirmatively agreed to join the Union and authorized the University to deduct dues from their wages pursuant to the terms of their agreements, including terms limiting when they could withdraw authorization. … The district court correctly held that exclusive Union representation does not violate Appellants’ First Amendment right to freely associate. Janus prohibited the collection of agency fees from nonmembers; it did not render unions’ service as exclusive bargaining agents unconstitutional.” 

Savas v. California State Law Enforcement Agency

• Appeal from: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California 
• Original complaint: Jan. 6, 2020
• Plaintiffs’ representation: Freedom Foundation 
• District judge: Dana M. Sabraw
• District court ruling: Sept. 9, 2020
• Summary of the appeal: “Appeal from the dismissal of an action alleging First Amendment violations in connection with plaintiffs’ attempts to resign from their union membership.” 
• From the panel’s decision: “The district court correctly concluded that the holding in Janus applied to nonunion members only and because [the plaintiffs-appellants] are union members, Janus is inapplicable here. … The [plaintiffs-appellants] cannot escape this conclusion by arguing they become nonmembers once they make their resignation known to the union. A member of a union continues to be bound by the requirements of their membership application, including their duty to pay dues, even if they decide that they no longer want the benefits of union membership. … Though the [plaintiffs-appellants] had to choose, at the time they joined, between an agency fee and union membership, the [plaintiffs-appellants] still made the affirmative choice to become members.”

Once an appellate panel has published its decision, parties may file a petition for a panel rehearing or rehearing en banc within 14 days or a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court within 90 days. 

President Bill Clinton (D) nominated Paez to the Ninth Circuit, and President Barack Obama (D) nominated Nguyen. Clinton nominated Tunheim to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

About the Ninth Circuit 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hears appeals from the district courts within its jurisdiction, which includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The chief judge of the court is Mary Murguia, an Obama appointee. Of the court’s 29 active judges, Clinton nominated five, George W. Bush (R) nominated three, Obama nominated seven, Donald Trump (R) nominated 10, and Joe Biden (D) nominated four.  

What we’re reading

• NJ.com, “South Jersey bus drivers sue over union dues they say they shouldn’t have paid,” May 3, 2022
• Cook County Record, “Appeals panel says states can make lawyers join the bar based on ‘undermined’ law, but SCOTUS might say ‘no,’” May 2, 2022
• International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, “Baltimore County Public Library Employees Vote to Ratify First Machinists Union Contract Following Groundbreaking Organizing Campaign,” May 2, 2022
• Colorado Politics, “Senators give preliminary approval to collective bargaining bill after reaching compromise,” April 30, 2022
• Bloomberg Law, “Mandatory Membership in State Bar of Wisconsin Constitutional,” April 29, 2022
• California Teachers Association, “Oakland Educators Go on One-Day Unfair Labor Practice Strike,” April 29, 2022

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 142 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s) 

Recent legislative actions

Below is a complete list of relevant legislative actions taken since our last issue.

• California SB931: This bill would allow a union to bring a claim before the Public Employment Relations Board against a public employer allegedly in violation of California Government Code Section 3550 and sets civil penalties for violations. Section 3550 prohibits public employers from discouraging union membership. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Appropriations Committee hearing held May 2, bill placed on Appropriations Suspense File.  
• California SB1313: This bill would prohibit Los Angeles County from discriminating against union members by limiting employee health benefits.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Appropriations Committee hearing held May 2, bill placed on Appropriations Suspense File.
• California SB1406: This bill would allow unions representing excluded state employees to request arbitration with the Department of Human Resources in certain circumstances.  
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Appropriations Committee hearing held May 2, bill placed on Appropriations Suspense File. 
• Colorado SB230: This bill would give county employees the right to organize and bargain collectively beginning in 2023. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Appropriations Committee hearing held April 29, adopted amendment, referred to Senate. Senate second reading April 29, passed with amendments. Senate third reading May 2, passed without amendment. Introduced in House, referred to House State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs Committee May 2. Committee hearing May 5.
• Minnesota SF4574: This bill would eliminate the requirement for the legislature to approve negotiated collective bargaining agreements and arbitration awards for state employees.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Introduced and referred to Senate State Government Finance and Policy and Elections Committee May 4. 
• Oklahoma SB1579: This bill would allow school boards to grant unpaid leaves of absence for employees to hold office in an employee association if certain criteria are met. An employee organization would be required to comply with this law in order to be recognized as the representative of a bargaining unit.     
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Governor signed into law on April 29.