Opinion ID: 1247623
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Expenditure of Dues for Political and Ideological Activities Violates the First Amendment

Text: In Railway Employes' Dept. v. Hanson (1956) 351 U.S. 225 [100 L.Ed. 1112, 76 S.Ct. 714], the United States Supreme Court first considered a challenge to a union shop agreement. [1] Nonunion employees complained that such an agreement, by forcing them into ideological and political associations which violate their right to freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and freedom of thought, violated their First Amendment rights. ( Id. at p. 236 [100 L.Ed.2d at p. 1132].) Because the challenge was directed to the facial validity of the Railway Labor Act, the court confined its inquiry to the statute, holding that Congress, acting under its broad commerce clause powers, [2] could reasonably determine that industrial peace required all employees who benefitted from union representation to support financially the work of the union in the realm of collective bargaining. ( Id. at p. 235 [100 L.Ed.2d at p. 1132].) The court specifically noted, however, that First Amendment problems would arise if `assessments' are in fact imposed for purposes not germane to collective bargaining. ( Ibid. ) Thus, the court indicated the possibility of a First Amendment challenge in situations where a union, under a union shop agreement, required objecting employees to support financially activities not germane to the union's collective bargaining duties. (See id. at p. 238 [100 L.Ed.2d at p. 1134].) Just such a challenge was presented in Machinists v. Street, supra, 367 U.S. 740, 749 [6 L.Ed.2d 1141, 1150]. In Street, the plaintiff alleged that the union, which required him to pay dues under a union shop agreement, used these funds to finance the campaigns of candidates for federal and state offices whom he opposed, and to promote the propagation of political and economic doctrines, concepts and ideologies with which he disagreed. (367 U.S. at p. 744 [6 L.Ed.2d at p. 1147].) The court chose, however, to avoid the constitutional question, basing its decision instead on an interpretation of the relevant statute. It held that Congress, in enacting the union shop provision (§ 2, Eleventh, of the Railway Labor Act), never intended to grant the authority to a union, over the employee's objection, to spend his money for political causes which he opposes. ( Id. at p. 768 [6 L.Ed.2d at pp. 1160-1161].)
In a companion case to Street, supra, 367 U.S. 740 ( Lathrop v. Donohue (1960) 367 U.S. 820 [6 L.Ed.2d 1191, 81 S.Ct. 1826]), the United States Supreme Court considered a challenge by members of the Wisconsin State Bar to an order of the Wisconsin Supreme Court requiring all attorneys to become bar members. The plaintiff, a Wisconsin attorney, had paid his dues under protest and sued for a refund, claiming that the state bar used his dues to engage in political activities which he opposed and that, by coercing him to join the bar and support its political activities, the Wisconsin Supreme Court order integrating the state bar was unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court concluded that by integrating the bar the Wisconsin Legislature and Supreme Court had advanced the public interest `by maintaining high standards of conduct in the legal profession and by aiding in the efficient administration of justice' ( Lathrop, supra, at pp. 831-832 [6 L.Ed.2d at p. 1199]). Relying on its analysis in Hanson, supra, 351 U.S. 225, the court stated that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, in order to further the State's legitimate interests in raising the quality of professional services, may constitutionally require that the costs of improving the profession in this fashion should be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program, the lawyers, even though the organization created to attain the objective also engages in some legislative activity. ( Lathrop at p. 843 [6 L.Ed.2d at p. 1205].) Several points underlying this holding have particular significance to the instant case. First, it is significant that the court considered the regulatory function of the Wisconsin State Bar to be the primary justification for the compulsory membership requirement. (See Schneyer, The Incoherence of the Unified Bar Concept: Generalizing from the Wisconsin Case (1983) Am. B. Found. Res. J. 1, 54-55 [Basically, Brennan saw the state bar as a public agency created to fund and administer regulatory or governmental programs.].) Second, the court employed language reminiscent of its commerce clause decisions. This suggests that the state's regulatory or police power, similar in scope to Congress' commerce clause power (see ante, fn. 2), was the actual source of authority underlying integration of the bar. (Accord Herron v. State Bar (1944) 24 Cal.2d 53, 64 [147 P.2d 543].) Both these points emphasize the court's identification of the justifying governmental interest as the advancement of the delivery of quality legal services to the public. Finally, the court implicitly balanced the state's interest in regulating the legal profession with what, in that case, appeared to be a minimal intrusion into the attorneys' associational and speech rights. [3] (Schneyer, The Incoherence of the Unified Bar Concept, supra, at p. 51.) The court managed to avoid the plaintiff's claim that the bar's use of his mandatory dues to support political activities violated the First Amendment by finding the record insufficiently developed in this regard. ( Lathrop, supra, 367 U.S. 820, 845-846 [6 L.Ed.2d 1191, 1206-1207].) It is significant to the case before us, however, that only four of the justices deemed the constitutional issue not ripe for adjudication (Chief Justice Warren and Associate Justices Brennan, Clark and Stewart), while five justices considered the issue to be squarely presented. Of these five, two found the use of objecting members' mandatory dues for political purposes to be constitutional ( id. at p. 865 [6 L.Ed.2d at pp. 1217-1218] [Harlan, J., conc. in judgment, joined by Frankfurter, J.]), two found such use to be unconstitutional ( id. at p. 871 [6 L.Ed.2d at p. 1221] [Black, J., dis.]; id. at pp. 884-885 [8 L.Ed.2d at pp. 1228-1229] [Douglas, J., dis.]), and one considered the practice of law to be a special privilege and thus not a right protected by the First Amendment. [4] ( Id. at p. 865 [6 L.Ed.2d at p. 1218] [Whittaker, J., conc. in result].) Moreover, because the Lathrop majority explicitly detailed the particular facts it would have needed to address the First Amendment question ( id. at pp. 846-847 [8 L.Ed.2d at p. 1207]), it appears that, had the record been sufficiently developed in these regards, the entire court would have agreed that the First Amendment issue was squarely presented. Indeed, the court subsequently characterized Lathrop by stating that [t]he only proposition about which a majority of the Court in Lathrop agreed was that the constitutional issues should be reached. ( Abood, supra, 431 U.S. at p. 233, fn. 29 [52 L.Ed.2d at p. 283].) Thus, at the very least, Lathrop, supra, 367 U.S. 820, supports the proposition that use of the mandatory bar dues of objecting members for political and ideological purposes presents a clear constitutional question. Subsequent cases have established that even the generalized allegations found wanting in Lathrop are sufficient to raise the First Amendment challenge. (See Abood, supra, 431 U.S. at p. 241 [52 L.Ed.2d at p. 288]; Arrow v. Dow (10th Cir.1981) 636 F.2d 287, 289.) The majority in this case avoids the constitutional issue by labeling the State Bar as a governmental agency, and concluding that a governmental agency may use unrestricted revenue ... for any purposes within its authority. (Maj. opn, at p. 1167, italics added.) What the majority fails to recognize, however, is that under federal constitutional law the use of objecting members' mandatory dues for political or ideological purposes is not unrestricted. Abood, supra, 431 U.S. 209, and its progeny make this abundantly clear as I shall further explain in the following section. Further, the majority's effort to distinguish the California State Bar from the integrated bars of other states, including Wisconsin, whose courts have uniformly applied the Abood holding to analyze the question of use of mandatory bar dues (see post, pp. 1180-1181), is unpersuasive. Simply saying that none of these states' bars rest upon a constitutional and statutory structure comparable to that of the California State Bar does not explain why such a distinction renders the California State Bar immune from the First Amendment constraints, while the Wisconsin Bar is not. The United States Supreme Court's decision in Lathrop, supra, 367 U.S. 820, clearly supports the proposition that an integrated bar's use of mandatory dues of objecting members for political or ideological causes is subject to constitutional scrutiny. It was not until the decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, supra, 431 U.S. 209, however, that the court explicated the First Amendment issue.
In Abood, the United States Supreme Court first addressed the constitutional issues raised when a union, or, as I would hold, an integrated state bar, spends objecting members' dues for political or ideological purposes. Because the freedom to associate for the purpose of advancing ideas and beliefs is protected by the First Amendment, the court reasoned that contributing to an organization for the purpose of spreading a political message is protected by the First Amendment. ( Abood, supra, 431 U.S. at p. 234 [52 L.Ed.2d at p. 284].) Recognizing further that the First Amendment is violated when one is compelled to make, rather that prohibited from making, contributions for political purposes ( id. ), the court concluded that the Constitution prohibit[s the state] from requiring [an individual] to contribute to the support of an ideological cause he may oppose as a condition of holding a job.... ( Id. at p. 235 [52 L.Ed.2d at p. 284].) [5] Thus, Abood holds that the First Amendment prohibits the state from coercing an individual, by threatening the loss of his livelihood, to financially support ideological or political causes to which he objects. ( Abood, supra, 431 U.S. 209, 235-236 [52 L.Ed.2d at pp. 284-285]; Ellis, supra, 466 U.S. 435, 455 [80 L.Ed.2d 428, 446]; cf. Wooley v. Maynard (1977) 430 U.S. 705, 715 [51 L.Ed.2d 752, 762-763, 97 S.Ct. 1428]; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n, supra, 475 U.S. at p. 9 [89 L.Ed.2d at pp. 7-8]; Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) 447 U.S. 74, 100 [64 L.Ed.2d 741, 764, 100 S.Ct. 2035].) The event that triggers the constitutional inquiry is the state's authorizing, or compelling, support of political or ideological causes through the coercive threat of the loss of one's livelihood for refusing to contribute. Attorneys are forced to join the State Bar as a condition precedent to practicing law in the state, just as employees are forced to support unions under provisions for union and agency shops. While the state's need to regulate the legal profession may justify such coercion, it does not justify compulsory financial support of political or ideological causes by objecting members. Thus, when the State Bar spends a portion of compulsory membership dues on political or ideological causes rather than on regulatory functions, the identical First Amendment concerns which faced the United States Supreme Court in Abood, supra, 431 U.S. 209, are presented. Recognizing these concerns, every other court that has considered First Amendment challenges to state bar political expenditures has applied the Abood analysis. (See Gibson v. The Florida Bar (11th Cir.1986) 798 F.2d 1564, 1568; Falk v. State Bar of Michigan (1981) 411 Mich. 63, 106 [305 N.W.2d 201, 213] [ Falk I ]; Falk v. State Bar of Michigan (1983) 418 Mich. 270, 290-91 [342 N.W.2d 504, 410] [ Falk II ], cert. den. (1984) 469 U.S. 925 [83 L.Ed.2d 253, 105 S.Ct. 315]; Reynolds v. State Bar of Montana (Mont. 1983) 660 P.2d 581, 581-582 [40 A.L.R.4th 669] [without citing Abood, court ordered refund to objecting members of dues spent for political activities]; Petition of Chapman (1986) 128 N.H. 24, 35-36 [509 A.2d 753, 755] [N.H. State Bar]; Arrow v. Dow (D.N.M. 1982) 544 F. Supp. 458, 460 [N.M. State Bar]; Schneider v. Colegio de Abogados de P.R. (D.P.R. 1983) 565 F. Supp. 963, 965, on remand, (D.P.R. 1988) 682 F. Supp. 674, 683-684 [bar association of P.R.]; Hollar v. Government of the Virgin Islands (3d Cir.1988) 857 F.2d 163, 170 [bar association of the Virgin Islands].) [6] I would join the jurisdictions that apply Abood 's constitutional analysis. Indeed, as the cited decisions clearly demonstrate, federal constitutional law compels that analysis. As I explain in the next section, simply labeling the State Bar as a governmental agency does not, the majority to the contrary notwithstanding, exempt this case from First Amendment analysis.