U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Arguments in Janus v. AFSCME

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on

Pioneer Institute Signed onto Amicus Brief Urging Court to Accept Case

BOSTON – The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, a case involving an Illinois public employee who sued the defendant claiming that being compelled to pay an agency fee violates his First Amendment right to freely express dissent.

Pioneer Institute, through its public interest law initiative PioneerLegal, signed onto an amicus brief at the invitation of the Pacific Legal Foundation that supported Janus’s petition asking the Supreme Court to hear his agency fee case.

“We recognized that many observers believed the time was right for the Supreme Court to accept the case as its key issues – particularly those based on First Amendment claims – had been percolating in the federal courts for some time,” said Pioneer Institute and PioneerLegal Senior Fellow in Law & Public Policy John Sivolella.  According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Supreme Court accepts 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases it is asked to review annually.

The outcome of the case may also have a local impact.  A group of Massachusetts educators has petitioned the commonwealth’s Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) to hear a case challenging payments they’re compelled to make to unions as a condition of employment.  The SJC will likely delay its ruling pending the outcome of the Janus case. 

About Pioneer Institute and PioneerLegal

Pioneer Institute is an independent, non-partisan, privately funded research organization that seeks to improve the quality of life in Massachusetts through civic discourse and intellectually rigorous, data-driven public policy solutions based on free market principles, individual liberty and responsibility, and the ideal of effective, limited and accountable government.

Pioneer focuses on achieving policy goals in four issue areas: expanding access to high-performing schools; increasing affordable, high-quality healthcare options; ensuring that government services are efficient, accountable and transparent; and growing prosperity and economic opportunity.

PioneerLegal, as the public-interest law initiative of Pioneer, utilizes a legal-based approach to work to change policies that adversely affect the public interest in Pioneer’s core policy areas.  PioneerLegal’s substantive work is consistent with the mission of Pioneer as it clearly develops and promotes its brand as a public-interest law initiative.

Related Posts:

Public Statement: Pioneer Institute Applauds U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Espinoza School Choice Case

Pioneer Institute applauds today’s U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down a bigoted state constitutional amendment in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. Like Massachusetts, Montana is among nearly 40 states with so-called anti-aid amendments, which have roots in 19th century anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant discrimination.

Pioneer Institute Looks Ahead to the Protection of Civil Liberties

Challenges to Americans’ civil liberties have increased in recent years.  History teaches us that during national emergencies governments are even more likely to overstep and violate constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. To address this concern, Pioneer Institute has created “Respect My Rights,” a web-based hotline to which citizens can submit complaints and descriptions of violations they have experienced.

New Report & Legal Analysis Suggests ICER’s Quality Adjusted Life Years Methodology Violates the Americans with Disabilities Act

A new report, "The Legality of QALY under the ADA," outlines several potential legal violations and negative implications for disabled individuals related to the adoption of the QALY approach to drug value assessment, used most prominently by ICER.

Pioneer Institute Files Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court to Hear School Choice Case

Claims amendment to Montana Constitution motivated by anti-Catholic…