In March 2017, the Supreme Court decided Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association and upheld the constitutionality of agency fees for nonunion teachers. We examine how Friedrichs reflects a host of issues grouped around a patchwork of ideological commitments regarding teachers unions and public-sector unions more generally, partisan politics, and empirically oriented claims about the impact of teachers unions on students’ educational opportunities. We particularly argue that the case reflects a tension between judicial, scientific, and democratic decision-making, and that courts and reformers should be sensitive to this tension as they consider similar cases moving forward.
AnziaS. F.MoeT. M. (2014). Collective bargaining, transfer rights, and disadvantaged schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 83-111.
4.
AronsonM. (2015). The deceptive promise of Vergara: Why teacher tenure lawsuits will not improve student achievement. Cardozo Law Review, 37, 393-428.
5.
BickelA. (1986). The least dangerous branch: The Supreme Court at the bar of politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6.
BlumenthalJ. A. (2002). Law and social science in the twenty-first century. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 12, 1-53.
7.
Brief of Former California Governor Pete Wilson (2016) Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 587 U.S. (No. 14-915), 2015 WL 5450502. Brief of Former California Governor Pete Wilson, Pacific Research Institute, & Bipartisan California Educators and Scholars as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents.
8.
Brief of School Districts (2016) Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 587 U.S. (No. 14-915), 2015 WL 7252636. Brief of School Districts as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents.
9.
Brief for the States of New York, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’I, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachuettes, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington and the District of Columbia (2016) Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 587 U.S. (No. 14-915), 2015 WL 7294872. Brief for the States of New York, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’I, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachuettes, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington and the District of Columbia as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents.
10.
Brief for the Union Respondents (2016) Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 587 U.S. (No. 14-915), 2015 WL 6935529.
11.
BrillS. (2010, May17). The teachers’ unions’ last stand. The New York Times, pp. 32-38.
12.
BrooksD. (2011, February22). Make everybody hurt. The New York Times, pp. A25.
13.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
14.
California Government Code, Sec. 3546 (a).
15.
Center on National Labor Policy, Inc. & National Institute for Labor Relations Research, Inc., et al. (2016) Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 587 U.S. (No. 14-915), 2015 WL 5317007. Center on National Labor Policy, Inc. & National Institute for Labor Relations Research, Inc., et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents.
16.
ChemerinskyE. (2003). The segregation and resegregation of American public education: The courts’ role. North Carolina Law Review, 81, 1597-1622.
17.
CheslerM. A.SandersJ.KalmusD. S. (1988). Social science in court: Mobilizing experts in the school desegregation cases. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
18.
Cities, Counties and Elected Officials as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 587 U.S. (2016) (No. 14-915), 2015 WL 7294871.
19.
CooperB. S.SureauJ. (2008). Teacher unions and the politics of fear in labor relations. Educational Policy, 22, 86-105.
20.
EdmondG. (2007). Supersizing daubert: Science for litigation and its implications for legal practice and scientific research. Villanova Law Review, 52, 857-924.
21.
FarkasS.JohnsonJ.DuffettA. (2003). Stand by me: What teachers really think about unions, merit pay and other professional matters. New York, NY: Public Agenda.
22.
First National Maintenance Corporation v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666 (1981).
23.
FreemanR. B. (1984, September). Unionism comes to the public sector (Working paper 1542). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
24.
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 136 S.Ct. 1083 (2016).
25.
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 2013 WL 9825479 (C.D. Cal).
26.
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 2014. WL 10076847 (9th Cir.).
27.
FullerH. L.MitchellG. A.HartmannM. E. (2000). Collective bargaining in Milwaukee public schools. In LovelessT. (Ed.), Conflicting missions? Teachers unions and educational reform (pp. 110-149). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
28.
GoldhaberD. (2006). Are teachers unions good for students? In HannawayJ.RotherhamA. J. (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 141-157). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
29.
GrissomJ. A.StrunkK. O. (2012). How should school districts shape teacher salary schedules? Linking school performance to pay structure in traditional compensation schemes. Educational Policy, 26, 663-695.
30.
HannawayJ.RotherhamA. J. (2006). Conclusion. In HannawayJ.RotherhamA. J. (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 257-266). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
31.
HeiseM. (2002). The past, present, and future of empirical legal scholarship: Judicial decision making and the new empiricism. University of Illinois Law Review, 2002, 819-850.
32.
HemelD.LoukD. (2015). Is Abood irrelevant?University of Chicago Law Review, 82, 227-250.
HoxbyC. M. (1996). How teachers’ unions affect education production. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 671-718.
35.
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, 851 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2017), cert. granted, 2017 WL 2483128 (U.S. 2017).
36.
JasanoffS. (1995). Science at the bar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
KahlenbergR. D. (2006). The history of collective bargaining among teachers. In HannawayJ.RotherhamA. J. (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 7-26). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
38.
KerchnerC.KoppichJ. (1993). A union of professionals: Labor relations and educational reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
39.
KomesarN. K. (1994). Imperfect alternatives: Choosing institutions in law, economics, and public policy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
40.
KomesarN. K. (2004). Reflections on the essence of economics, the character of courts, the role of ideology, and the reform of legal education. Law & Social Inquiry, 29, 291-298.
41.
LiptakA. (2016, January11). Supreme Court seems poised to deal unions a major setback. The New York Times. Available from http://www.lexisnexis.com
42.
LuggC. A. (2004). One nation under god? Religion and the politics of education in a post-9/11 America. Educational Policy, 18, 169-187.
43.
Mackinac Center for Public Policy (2016) Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 587 U.S. (No. 14-915), 2015 WL 5317006. Mackinac Center for Public Policy as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents.
44.
MaitlandC. (2007). NEA higher education: 150 years and growing. Thought & Action, Fall2007, 71-82.
45.
MalinM. H. (2009). The paradox of public sector labor law. Indiana Law Journal, 84, 1369-1398.
46.
MalinM. H. (2012). Sifting through the wreckage of the tsunami that hit public sector collective bargaining. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 16, 553-557.
47.
MalinM. H.KerchnerC. T. (2007). Charter schools and collective bargaining: Compatible marriage or illegitimate relationship?Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 20, 885-937.
48.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
49.
MayerG. (2004). Union membership trends in the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University ILR School.
MoeT. M. (2000). The two democratic purposes in public education. In McDonnellL. M.TimpaneP. M.BenjaminR. (Eds.), Rediscovering the democratic purposes of education (pp. 127-147). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
52.
MoeT. M. (2011). Special interest: Teachers unions and America’s public schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
53.
Montgomery County Educational Association v. Board of Education, 534 A.2d. 980 (Md., 1987).
54.
MurphyM. (1990). Blackboard unions: The AFT and the NEA, 1900-1980. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Oral Argument. (2016). Friedrichs v. CTA, 2016 WL 344760.
57.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari (2016) Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 587 U.S. (No. 14-915).
58.
PopielK. (2015). Classroom, community, and contract: A new framework for building moral legitimacy and member activism in unions. In BasciaN. (Ed.), Teacher unions in public education: Politics, history, and the future (pp. 121-138). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
RebellM. A.BlockA. R. (1982). Educational policy making and the courts: An empirical study of judicial activism. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
61.
RosenthalA. (1993). The third house: Lobbyists and lobbying in the states. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
62.
RussoC. J. (2016). Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association: Fair share fees survive. West Education Law Reporter, 329, 1-15.
State of Michigan and Seventeen Other States (2016) Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 587 U.S. (No. 14-915), 2015 WL 5440190. State of Michigan and Seventeen Other States as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents.
66.
StrunkK. O. (2011). Are teachers’ unions really to blame? Collective bargaining agreements and their relationships with district resource allocation and student performance in California. Education, 6, 354-398.
67.
StrunkK. O.GrissomJ. A. (2010). Do strong unions shape district policies? Collective bargaining, teacher contract restrictiveness, and the political power of teachers’ unions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 389-406.
68.
SuperfineB. M. (2009). The evolving role of the courts in educational policy: The tension between judicial, scientific, and democratic decision making in Kitzmiller v. Dover. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 898-923.
WeinerL. (2012). The future of our schools: Teachers unions and social justice. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
72.
WelnerK. G. (2012). Scholars as policy actors: Research, public discourse, and the zone of judicial constraints. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 7-29.
73.
WelnerK. G.KupermintzH. (2004). Rethinking expert testimony in education rights litigation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 127-142.
