Document: 496 U.S. 1 110 S.Ct. 2228 L.Ed.2d Eddie KELLER, et al., Petitionersv.STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA al. No. 88-1905. Argued Feb. 27, 1990. Decided June 4, Syllabus Respondent State Bar of California (State Bar) is an "integrated bar"—i.e., association attorneys in which membership and dues are required as a condition practicing law created under state to regulate the State's legal profession. In fulfilling its broad statutory mission "promote improvement administration justice," uses for self-regulatory functions, such formulating rules professional conduct disciplining members misconduct. It also lobby legislature other governmental agencies, file amicus curiae briefs pending cases, hold annual delegates conference debate current issues approval resolutions, engage educational programs. Petitioners, members, brought suit court claiming that through these latter activities expends mandatory payments advance political ideological causes they do not subscribe, violation their First Fourteenth Amendment rights freedom speech association. They requested, inter alia, injunction restraining from using or name beliefs. The granted summary judgment on grounds it agency therefore permitted challenged activities. Court Appeal reversed, holding that, while Bar's regulatory were similar those government agency, "administration-of-justice" functions more akin labor union. Relying analysis Abood v. Detroit Bd. Education, 431 209, 97 1782, 52 261—which prohibits agency-shop dissenting nonunion employees being used support union unrelated collective-bargaining activities—the held could be financed only if particular action served interest important enough overcome interference with dissenters' rights. Supreme reasoning was "government agency" use any purpose within scope authority, subjecting scrutiny would place "extraordinary burden" mission. With exception certain election campaigning, found all fell authority. Held: 1. petitioners' compulsory finance petitioners disagree violates right free when expenditures necessarily reasonably incurred regulating profession improving quality services. Pp. 9-17. (a) Court's determination purposes binding this essential decision federal question. typical agency." principal funding comes levied rather than appropriations made by legislature; composed solely lawyers admitted practice State; services way governance essentially advisory nature, since ultimate responsibility reserved Court. By contrast, there substantial analogy between relationship unions members. Just appropriate who receive benefit negotiation employer pay fair share cost process paying dues, entirely derive status before courts should called upon involvement effort. created, participate general State, but provide specialized advice governing These differences traditional agencies render unavailing respondents' argument subject same constitutional rule respect unions. 10-13. (b) cannot distinguished ground compelled context serves private economic collective bargaining public interests. fact, legislative recognition arrangements serve vital national interests preserving industrial peace indicates well. possible determine outweigh sufficiently produce different result here. P. 13. (c) guiding standard determining permissible relating whether Precisely where line falls impermissible dues-financed will always easy discern. But extreme ends spectrum clear: Compulsory may endorse gun control nuclear weapons freeze initiative, spent connected proposing profession's ethical codes. 13-16. (d) Since already submit detailed budgets obtaining set assumption complying create extraordinary burden unpersuasive. Any might insufficient justify contravention mandate, have operated successfully boundaries procedures over decade. An integrated bar meet obligation adopting sort described Teachers Hudson, 475 292, 106 1066, 89 232. Questions alternative satisfy left consideration fully developed record. 16-17. 2. Petitioners' claim based beliefs addressed first instance. 17. 47 Cal.3d 1152, 255 Cal.Rptr. 542, 767 P.2d 1020 (1989), reversed remanded. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion unanimous Anthony T. Caso, Sacramento, Cal., petitioners. Seth M. Hufstedler, Los Angeles, respondents. Chief Justice REHNQUIST respondent California, sued body, opposed violated United States Constitution. rejected challenge and, such, We agree join Bar, engage. 2 organization profession.1 entity commonly referred bar"—an State. Respondent's 'the justice.' " 1156, 543, 1020, 1021 (1989) (quoting Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code Ann. § 6031(a) (West Supp.1990)). performs variety "examining applicants admission, conduct, misconduct, preventing unlawful law, engaging study recommendation changes procedural justice." Cal.3d, at 1159, Cal.Rptr., 545-546, P.2d, 1023-1024 (internal quotation marks omitted). engages number dispute case. "[T]he many years has lobbied Legislature filed debated resolutions approved, engaged education programs." Id., 543-544, 1021-1022. principally dues. 3 21 subscribe.2 Asserting financial association, trial respondent's our Board 261 (1977), "could question rights." Cal.Rptr, 545, 1023. 4 divided vote. reasoned corporation, well characteristics, expressed belief promote justice. 1161-1166, 547-550, 1025-1028. cases associations scrutiny, see, e.g., Gibson Florida 798 F.2d 1564 (CA11 1986), none involved rested "upon structure comparable Bar. None involves extensive degree regulation." 1167, 551, 1029. concluded "the considered authority." 1168, 552, 1030. campaigning conducted president, 1168-1173, 552-555, 1030-1033. certiorari, 493 806, 46, 107 15 consider claims. now reverse remand further proceedings. 5 Lathrop Donohue, 367 820, 81 1826, 6 1191 (1961), Wisconsin lawyer claimed he constitutionally financially opinions on, attempted influence, legislation. Six Members Court, relying Railway Employes Hanson, 351 225, 76 714, 100 L.Ed. 1112 (1956), claim. "In view case presents impingement no we decided [Hanson ]. 2, Eleventh Labor Act . did face abridge protected authorizing union-shop agreements interstate railroads conditioning employees' continued employment payment initiation fees assessments. rejecting Hanson's abridgment his said, 'On present record, infringement impairment member bar.' U.S., 238 [76 S.Ct., 721]. Both purport bulk function, least so believe, elevating standards end service available people without reference process. denied legitimate policy. think Wisconsin, order raising services, require costs fashion shared subjects beneficiaries program, lawyers, even though attain objective some activity. Given character shown light limitation requirement reasonable unable find association." Lathrop, 842-843, 1837-1838 (plurality opinion) (footnote 7 Harlan, joined Frankfurter, similarly "[t]he Hanson surely lays rest doubt justified needs shop needs." 849, 1841 (opinion concurring judgment). 8 plurality emphasized, however, limited deciding: "[Lathrop's] enrollment imposes duty confronted, ], group activities, involuntary aspect." 827-828, 1830 Indeed, expressly Lathrop's additional objectionable believing record address claim.3 Petitioners here very decision, contending guaranteed Amendment. 9 confronted issue whether, consistent Amendment, Constitution prohibit spending "funds expression views toward advancement germane duties representative," "financed charges, assessments paid [did] object advancing ideas [were] coerced into doing against threat loss employment." 235-236, 1799-1800. noted just prohibitions making contributions organizations implicate fundamental concerns, see Buckley Valeo, 424 1, 96 612, 46 659 (1976), "compelled works less Abood, supra, 234, 1799. acknowledged Thomas Jefferson's 'to compel man furnish money propagation disbelieves, sinful tyrannical.' 234-235, n. 31, 1799-1800, 31 I. Brant, James Madison: Nationalist 354 (1948)). While predicated employee relinquish employment, 234-236, later Ellis Clerks, 466 435, 104 1883, 80 428 (1984), clear principles apply equally sector. See 455-457, 1895-1897. 10 Although several applied challenges associations, 1166, 550, 1028 (collecting cases), regulated exempted constraints "If then distinction revenue derived sources immaterial. A unrestricted revenue, taxes, fees, tolls, tuition, donation, sources, urges position, invoking so-called speech" doctrine: "The must take substantive positions decide disputed govern. So long bases actions goals, speak despite citizen disagreement content message, content-neutral." Brief Respondents 16. 259, 13, 1811, 13 (Powell, J., judgment) ("[T]he reason permitting taxes spend controversial projects representative people"). 11 Of course final authority "governmental" law. agency," entitled treatment accorded governor, mayor, tax commission, instance, us good deal most entities regarded common parlance "governmental agencies." Its comes, legislature, board governors.4 Only 122,000 undoubtedly valuable profession, nature. does admit anyone finally disbar suspend anyone, ultimately establish codes conduct. All 6064 1974) (admissions); 6076 (rules conduct); 6100 Supp.1990) (disbarment suspension). 12 There is, one hand, other. behind enactment "agency-shop" laws prevent "free riders"—those employers, choose dues—from avoiding benefit. concededly directly negotiations management, position organized bars generally been prefer large measure self-regulation regulation body little connection plan established recommendations admission practice, like bar. unique among characteristics discussed above distinguish role official agency. Government officials expected part democratic represent espouse majority constituents. countless advocates outside seeking influence policy, ironic charged decisions themselves If every insist funds express disagreed, great concern sector, know radically transformed. Cf. Lee, 455 252, 260, 102 1051, 1056, 71 127 (1982) ("The system function denominations allowed because manner religious belief"). 14 officers citizens voters, lawyers. officials, representing employees. two situations bargaining, peace, Ellis, 455-456, 1895-1896, possessed scales enable outweighs 16 expend individual's "germane" justified: bargaining. Here legalserv ices. fund goals out not, nature fall areas difficult question, course, define class 17 Construing held: 18 "[W]hen burdened expenditures, test performing exclusive dealing labor-management issues. Under standard, objecting direct negotiating administering contract settling grievances disputes, expenses undertakings normally employed implement effectuate unit." 448, 1892. 19 useful guidelines Thus, "improving State." 843, 1838 opinion). 20 complained supported quoted language relevant statute effect authorized 'aid matters pertaining science jurisprudence 1169, Simply putting alongside previous discussion extent suggest difference two. difference, illustrated allegations complaint kinds funded assert in, lobbying legislation (1) prohibiting local employers requiring polygraph tests; (2) possession armor-piercing handgun ammunition; (3) creating unlimited sue anybody causing air pollution; (4) requesting Congress refrain enacting guest-worker program importation workers countries. alleges sponsored endorsed disapproved statements senatorial candidate regarding review victim's bill rights, limiting federal-court jurisdiction abortions, school prayer, busing. supra. 22 acting advisers having coloration related other, expended initiative; valid objection 23 declining entail "an burden. neither time nor undertake bill-by-bill, case-by-case analysis, can accept risk litigation decides brief case." 1165-1166, 1028. assessment Kaufman court: 24 "[C]ontrary majority's assumption, perform three-step prior each instance seeks advise matter. Instead, according [Teachers v.] [475 232 (1986) ] requirements [association's] collection include adequate explanation basis fee, prompt opportunity amount fee impartial decisionmaker, escrow amounts pending.' (Id., 310 [106 1077] ). statutorily setting members' (Bus. Prof. Code 6140.1), mandated procedure 'an burden' 25 "While likely administrative perhaps prove times somewhat inconvenient, inconvenience hardly sufficient mandate. noteworthy developed, parameters decade." 1192, 568, 1046 (citations footnote 26 (1986), outlined minimum had methods fashioned rider" problem setting. believe certainly Hudson. likewise better 27 addition relief requested 5-6. This request appears much broader Lathrop. activities," 9, urge associate beyond Abood. claim, decline remain free, remand. 28 remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 29 ordered. Governors action. Accordingly, terms "respondent" "State Bar" refer either itself, board, warrants. Some follows: Lobbying criminal sanctions display sale drug paraphernalia minors; individualized programs students need special education; exclusion gift gifts tuition medical care; providing punishment life imprisonment parole shall minors tried adults convicted murder circumstance; deleting secure voters constructing low-rent housing projects; countries; Filing involving constitutionality rights; power workers' compensation discipline attorneys; attorney-public disclose names clients; disqualification firm; adoption Conference Delegates endorsing disapproving opposing App. 9-13. Harlan reached lacked merit. 848-865, 1840-1850. 1982, year filed, approximately 85% came balance up various applicant miscellaneous revenues taking examination. 76-77.

Category: 2