| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
| | Here is an overview of the 35 cases: | | Here is an overview of the 35 cases: |
| | | | |
| − | *''Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association'', No. 14-915 - the biggest case of the Term by far, this will consider invalidating mandatory union dues for public employees under the [[First Amendment]]. This could overrule ''[[Abood v. Detroit Board of Education]]''. | + | *''Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association'', No. 14-915 - the biggest case of the Term by far, this will consider invalidating mandatory union dues for public employees under the [[First Amendment]]. This could overrule ''[[Abood v. Detroit Board of Education]]''. |
| − | | + | ::From the Questions Presented: |
| − | Issue(s): (1) Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment; and (2) whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech.
| + | :::Twice in the past three years this Court has recognized that agency-shop provisions - which compel public employees to financially subsidize public--sector unions' efforts to extract union-preferred policies from local officials - impose a "significant impingement" on employees' First Amendment rights. ''Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union'', 132 S. Ct. 2277, 2289 (2012); ''see also Harris v. Quinn'', 134 S. Ct. 2618 (2014). California law requires every teacher working in most of its public schools to financially contribute to the local teachers' union and that union's state and national affiliates in order to subsidize expenses the union claims are germane to collective bargaining. California law also requires public--school teachers to subsidize expenditures unrelated to collective bargaining unless a teacher affirmatively objects and then renews his or her opposition in writing every year. |
| | + | :::The questions presented are therefore: |
| | + | ::::1. Whether ''Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed.,'' 431 U.S. 209 (1977), should be overruled and public-sector "agency shop" arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment. |
| | + | ::::2. Whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech. |
| | *[[Eighth Amendment]] ([[capital punishment]]) - 4 cases, three of which will be argued together | | *[[Eighth Amendment]] ([[capital punishment]]) - 4 cases, three of which will be argued together |
| | *[[affirmative action]] case, on its second trip to the Supreme Court, in ''Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin'', No. 14-981 | | *[[affirmative action]] case, on its second trip to the Supreme Court, in ''Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin'', No. 14-981 |