Harris v. Quinn (11-681)

argument 11-681

Harris v. Quinn

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What constitutional issue does the case Harris v. Quinn raise about compulsory union fees?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument first this morning in case eleven six eighty one Harris versus Quinn. Mr. Messenger?

Unknown 0:10

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Illinois is forcing Susan Watts and thousands of other home care providers to pay compulsory fees to the SCIU. petition the state about its Medicaid program that pays for their services to persons with disabilities. In Mrs. Watts' case, her daughter Libby. This violates the First Amendment because the purpose of this mandatory association is inherently expressive. petition the government for a redress of grievances, otherwise lobbying. And also because this uh program I thought it was to negotiate What's typically negotiated in collective bargaining, that is wages. Isn't that is that not so? Wages and benefits. The uh barg subjects of bargaining here are the reimbursement rates given to the providers and the state now offers or pays money to the SCIU for a health benefit.

Unknown 0:58

But that is petitioning the government. uh with regard to those negotiations. But how does it differ from the typical Bargaining. That a union does. It asks for a wage rate. And it asks for various benefits. So are you saying but when it's a public sec in the public sector? It gets converted into something else. Yes, when in the public sector when a group is petitioning the government for money, uh that is petitioning the government over a public program here from a Medicaid program. It would be very little different than if the American Medical Association was asking for higher Medicaid rates uh for doctors or for nurses.

Elena Kagan 1:39

Is your argument dependent on this being sort of a dual employee situation? that it's reimbursement as opposed to policemen fire police people fire people. teachers, other public um other public employees who are directly employed by the State.

Unknown 1:59

That is our position for why a boot is distinguishable on that point, is that here the State is not the common law employer or the sole employer of these providers. It simply pays them for their services, much like a health insurer pays for the services of medical professionals.

Anthony M. Kennedy 2:14

But your argument of course isn't limited to that. It goes beyond that situation.

Unknown 2:20

Yes. And that that the actual bargaining even on behalf of true employees is also petitioning and political in nature, and for that reason a bood should be overruled. Is there any likelihood that um the union that represents uh these what I call them, health care workers, uh health providers, uh care providers. Uh is there any likelihood that they would um Uh try to bargain for benefits for these in these workers? Would the Union attempt to? Yes. Is there any likelihood? Do we know anything about what the likelihood uh would be for certain subjects to be the Brought up in the bargaining with the State? Well, one thing that has happened, this is in the collective bargaining agreement, is the State has agreed to give um certain amounts of money to an SCIU health care fund to offer access to health benefits for those providers.

Unknown 3:14

So the State is funding the SCIU's health benefit program um to that extent.

Elena Kagan 3:19

Did they have that before the union?

Unknown 3:21

No. Suppose you have a policeman who who is dissatisfied with his wages So he makes an appointment with the Commissioner. Police Commissioner. And he goes in and grouses about his wages. He does this f you know, ten or eleven times. And the commissioner finally is fed up and he tells his secretary, I don't I don't want to see this man again. Has he violated the constitution? No, because in that with an individual speaking, it is a matter of private or an internal proprietary matter that under this court's precedence don't rise to a matter of public concern. However, if you had an organization petitioning a s uh a police district for wages across the board for police officers, then that is a matter of public concern and would violate the

Unknown 4:14

I really don't understand that when when When you So what if it's ten policemen who do this? It's still not a matter of public concern? Well, it has to be the whole police force? It the line would be once you have the collective, it would be start to become a matter of public concern.