Cases about Union Membership wearing clothing with political messages and polling places and what information must be provided to women at pregnancy crisis centers. This is life from Heritage Foundation. This is the second time look at this very issue in its 2015 term the court divided evenly after Justice Scalia passed away. The second case Minnesota Voters Alliance info limits on political speech at the polls. While states have a legitimate interest in preventing intimidation and violence at the poll, can they have tshirts and other items that are deemed to political such as a dont tread on me tshirt . Filing the third case National Institute institute of family and life advocate challenges california still to lifeaffirming Pregnancy Centers to advertise states free abortion programs. The relevant law has some exemptions that the centers are just about the only medical facility in the state that have to post these proabortion notices. So to discuss these three case of fortune to have with us today attorneys who are part of a legal team for each case. They will provide insights about the cases and have the arguments people at the Supreme Court. First up will hear from jacob huebert, the director of litigation at the Liberty Justice center in chicago, illinois. He litigates cases to protect economic liberty, the first and him and other constitutional rights. Jacob is one of the attorneys representing mark in the Government Union case. Jacob is also challenged anticompetitive regulations targeting food trucks, ridesharing and airbnb. He is a graduate of Grove City College and university of Chicago Law School after law school he clicked for judge deborah cook of the sixth circuit. Then with her from todd gaziano, senior fellow and executive director of the Pacific Legal foundation d. C. Office. They represent Minnesota Voters Alliance in the political tshirt case. Hes a frequent commentator in print, radio and on tv. He served as secure trump of the u. S. Commission on civil rights and if he does it work here at heritage or he was my boss for five years. So welcome back. He also spent time in the office of Legal Counsel the u. S. Department of justice and as a chief subcommittee counsel yes house of representatives. Todd is a graduate of university of West Virginia and the university of Chicago Law School. He clicked for fifth circuit judge edith jones. Last but not least loaded from jordan lorence who served as senior counsel with Alliance Defending freedom. Hes one of the attorneys representing the prolife Pregnancy Centers from california. Jordans work encompasses a broad range of litigation with a primary focus on defending the First Amendment freedoms a Public University students and professors. Jordan argued before the Supreme Court in board of regents versus south were challenging university forcing unwilling students to contribute to campus activist groups. He is a graduate of Stanford University and the university of minnesota law school. So with that please join me looking our panelists and we will hear first from jacob. [applause] can the Government Force its employees to give money to a union just to keep their jobs . Thats the question of the Supreme Court will answer in janus versus ask me which is a First Amendment case in which the organization i i work for,e Liberty Justice center is representing the petitioner together with attorneys from the national right to work Legal Defense foundation. Our client is market janus, a man who worked as a Child Support specialist for the state of illinois. When you started doing his job about ten years ago, he noticed that future coming out of every paycheck and going to a Union Council 31 even though he wasnt a union member and anyone have anything to do with this particular unit. And the reason illinois can take that money out of his check was because it has a lot on the books that says that the state can enter into collectivebargaining agreements with unions or they will take money from every worker regardless of whether the worker is a member of of the union. And effect are 22 states across the country that have laws like this on the books, and as a result of those laws that are at least 5 million government workers across the country who have to give money out of every paycheck to a union, whether they want to or not. So our case challenges of these laws. We argued they violate the First Amendment because they violate the right to choose for yourself, what political speech you will and wont support and that violate the right to choose what groups you will and wont associate with. We lost in the lower courts because current Supreme Court precedent is against us. About 40 years ago in a case called detroit board of education, the Supreme Court said that this practice was okay. It said you cant make people give money to Certain Union political activities, contributions to candidates, other things with my call and electioneering, but you can make them pay the union for their proportionate share of the unions cost of marketing on their behalf. How did the Supreme Court reached that result in a boot . Normally in a First Amendment case that was involving forced support for speech or forced foh association, the courts would apply strict scrutiny which is a high form of scrutiny or what they call exacting scrutiny, which is also pretty rigorous. Under those standards the government would have to show at a minimum that its infringement on First Amendment rights serves a compelling governmental interest, and that theres no other way the government could serve the interest that would infringe on peoples rights less. You think thats the role, then in abood the Supreme Court wouldve made the government show that making people pay union fees serves a compelling governmental interest and that theres no other way the government could serve the interests, it would violate workers rights as much. The court didnt make the government show that in abood. It didnt talk about the usual First Amendment analysis at all. It just kind of skip it, and instead it just said that its okay to make workers pay for their share of the cost of the unions bargaining. Because otherwise they might become free riders. They might get the benefits of Union Representation without paying for it. The course of this relates sick of this interest in having labor peace to get idea is the government has an interest in dealing with one union to represent everybody in a group of workers, and so, so that interested to make everybody pay to fund what that union does. And that was about it as far as that analysis. In the course it but you cant make these workers pay for the stuff that really political, like the electioneering type activity. The court said association for political purposes is at the heart of the First Amendment and recognizing you can virtually never for somebody to pay for somebody elses politics like that. And so as a result we have this scheme in 22 states were workers are forced to either pay full union dues if there are Union Members are paid what they call an agency fee which is slightly less typically than full union dues. So of course in our case we argued that abood was wrongly decided and should be overturned. Theres lots of problems with the abu decision as i cant cover them all but ill hit a couple of key reasons why abood was wrong. One reason is because it doesnt actually protect workers from paying for unions political speech. And one reason why is because everything that a Public Sector union does is inherently political. When a union bargains with the car but it tells the government things like how much it should pay workers, what benefits it should provide. How which it run its programs. If anybody else talk to the government about the subjects everybody recognizes that as quintessential political speech. If anybody else does that we call it lobbying. So if the government worker is forced to give any money at all to the Public Sector union, particularly to fund collectivebargaining, then that worker is being forced to pay for somebody elses political advocacy. And again that something the First Amendment virtually never allows. Another key problem with the food isnt this free write a justification. Its not actually true that everybody benefits from what the union does. Some workers would prefer to represent themselves in negotiating with the government. They think, if youre an above average worker, you might prefer to be judged and based on individual merit instead of being lumped in with everybody else. And so if thats the case then you consider the unions representation to be a harm. And then you are harmed again because you have to pay for it on top of that. These people are not free riders. They are just injured by the union. That could also be true if you are, political ideas differ from what the union advocate for. Our client mark janis objects to the things that union he is forced to find has advocated for an advocate for now. Of course illinois is a terrible fiscal and economic mess, deeply in debt and so he thinks its wrong for his union to be advocating for billions more in Government Spending and advocating for tax increases to pay for that. And yet he is forced to fund this advocacy. Free write a argument just assumes that every worker only cares about his own narrow pecuniary selfinterest and that Money Matters most to everybody. And, of course, thats not true. Lots of people care about their neighbors and their communities and the states economy. And so they might not want more money for themselves all the time if they think its going to put an unfair burden on other people. Under the First Amendment we get to decide for ourselves what we value most and how we order our preferences with respect to policy. But the unions just presume to decipher everybody what you be most important to them and to make them pay for it. Of course thats wrong. There are reasons to be optimistic. The court is prepared to overrule abood in our case. If years ago in a case called harris versus quinn a majority of Supreme Court justices joined an opinion that essentially eviscerated abood racing, point of the palms ive mentioned among a number of others and then of course as elizabeth mentioned in 2016 the court heard arguments in the friedrichs case and then had a tie vote after an argument in which people thought the court t was going to rule in workers favor, and so now of course we dont have eight members anymor. We are now back up tonight so presumably there will not be a tie vote. So we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will restore every workers right to choose for himself or herself what political groups they will and wont support with their money. And were hopeful the court will say clearly that when you take a government job you dont have to check your First Amendment rights at the door. Thank you. [applause] todd . I want to especially thank my former heritage colleagues for putting on a Great Program and ask me back to participate, and im glad to be under your direction now, elizabeth. Specifically, the Pacific Legal foundation represents the Minnesota Voters Alliance in two of its officers who are challenging to overturn an unconstitutional minnesota law that bans the wearing of any button, insignia or tshirt with such political insignia at the polling place. Now, the statute is much broader than just prohibiting messages about the candidates for the issues. In fact, its breathtaking scope is the principal reason that its unconstitutional. Im going to return to the Legal Standard in a couple of minutes, but first lets reflect on the extent to which the multibilliondollar apparel industry caters to all of our desires to express ourselves in our clothing. We often where sweatshirts with our College Logos on game day, or especially after a victory. We wear tshirts with thousands of messages, many of which someone would consider political. And we also wear a variety of other insignia that recognizes our views. Such is so you dont think im reading the statute broader than it is, one of the instructions that poll workers received in minnesota about the law was that it prohibits wearing clothing or buttons, quote, promoting a group with recognizable political views such as the tea party, or moveon. Org, and so on. Well, we wear clothes of course to express a variety of views, not just about the candidate, but let me talk about another category. Sometimes we even where close that express yourself and we dont even care if other people understand the message. My former colleagues at the legal center here understood that on sundays i would wear particular ties to indicate a particular mood, like the one i have on right now. Edited really care if anyone understood them. I will cue the monitor, yes, on the side monitors is a selfie that my daughter and her boyfriend took on election day 2016, and a thin tweeted this picture out. For those of you who cant see this screen, theyre both wearing black tshirts with initials partially obscured is 2016. The fact that the tweeted this out and they were with their i just voted sticker signifies that what it was important to them that they were not trying to intimidate any of the voters at the polls because they knew that most people didnt know what smod myth and those who did what would probably chuckle. For those who dont know, smod stood for sweet meteor of the death to was a fictitious president ial candidate who promised to destroy all life on earth. [laughing] thankfully we now know smod is just another line politician. My final example though is that i gave a tie with dolphins on it to my dad to wear when he testified as an Expert Witness and alloys with challenges qualifications. He thought those lawyers were sharks, and he was amused by the fact that pods of dolphins can chase away sharks. Now come he doesnt really think that his tie was intimidating the council, but it just made him feel better. It made them feel better to privately be communicating that message. Which brings me to the facts of our case. Running up to the 2010 election, the Minnesota Voters Alliance printed tshirts with various messages, including one with the words liberty, which obviously has a political meaning. Our client the president of the Minnesota Voters Alliance was twice prevented from voting at his polling place with his tea party shirt that had the gadsden flag on it. The gadsden flag is a revolutionary war era drawing of a coiled snake with the words dont tread on me and thats what of the symbols of my thigh. On his third attempt he was allowed to vote for the paul volcker said they were taking down his name which they passed on to Law Enforcement officers for possible prosecution or criminal, or civil fines. Now, in the seven years of litigation followed, the state defended its ban on such horrible, scary, intimidating clothing onto basis. What is that it ensures peace and order at the polling place, and it would prevent intimidation and confusion. Now, the Supreme Court has come as elizabeth noted, upheld restrictions on active campaigning or electioneering within 40 40 or 100 feet of pog places. It varies by states. At that involves active campaigning where youre actually confronting a voter. None of you we do not contest or object in our lawsuit to any of the active campaigning bans. But it is clearly necessary to ban all political speech. By the way, every state also has separate laws that actually made any conduct that is intimidating or fraudulent or disruptive. So if it was possible to silently intimidate someone with your clothing, that would already be prohibited, and you dont need a separate statute that bans all of the types of speech. Now, the doctrine under the First Amendment go back, the central issue in our case is whether the minnesota statute is overbroad in suppressing a substantial amount of protected speech compared to the states purported interest in protecting against dangers speech. To use one very narrow example, the state might be able to ban classified in words on a tshirt that objectively would incite fight but thats just a very tiny amount of the speech that the minnesota statute forbids. Now, this overbreadth doctrine under the First Amendment unless people like our client to not only raise the speech they bring, but also raise a type of speech that others want to bring. Its a Great Service to bring such an overbreadth challenge, and a number of state and federal laws have been struck down under. So at this time im going to point to my colleague in the second row and ask him to raise his hand. He is the principal architect of our overbreadth petition to the Supreme Court. And his petition was so effective that now seven years later the state is trying to change its defense. So in its latest brief its trying to reinterpret the statute to go to conclude with the two reasons why thats not going to work. First, the statute plainly does cover all political speech on tshirts and not just a subset that is particularly dangerous. One of the other points that he made in his petition in the current brief is that the whole concept of what is political speech is so broad and i should say politicize that almost any message can be considered as political. If the u. S. Marine shirt promotes the military, which some say is political. Private religious messages like jesus saves, or choose life, are considered political. And that raises another concern with the statute. Because even if a particular poll worker wants to apply it neutrally, a liberal poll worker who is assigned will probably do some messages as political but think that messages about Global Warming are not. A conservative poll worker would think that a little messages are political or a chickfila, there would not think a particularly, that would be the liberal. But others would not appear to even if the poll workers are trying to apply this fairly, it will result in viewpoint discrimination and selective application. But the risk of actual conscious abuse in selective intimidation is even worse. And then my final reason why this state latest gambit wont work is they admitted during the litigation that there are especially broad application of the law and they cant take that back now. So i will let you brazier hand if you think the following are political raise your wearing a Minnesota Vikings sweatshirt . I see one hand, only one hand. An aflcio tshirt. About half. A chamber of commerce logo on a tshirt. Only a few. The state admitted all three of those are political and would be banned at the polls, lease if the Minnesota Vikings was seeking, you know, a bond for a new stadium. Let me conclude with the most ridiculous argument at the state makes, that they must ban all tea Party Tshirts and all aflcio tshirts to promote peace at the polls and prevent silent intimidation. The Supreme Court made clear in the vietnam war era case that unfounded fears of disruption are not grounds for a speech or a clothing ban. In that case it was an armband picking unfounded fear that political clothing worn in the line by a voter will trigger some other voter is an equally insubstantial reason to ban all political speech at the polls. Thank you. [applause] jordan . To remind you i am, im jordan lorence with Alliance Defending freedom, weve heard these two great presentations from todd and jacob. And adf, our ceo mike ferris will be arguing the case, the National Institute of family life advocates on, in the next sitting in march, on march 20, which challenges a California Law requiring prolife Pregnancy Centers to post proabortion messages and want to get into that and just a moment but i i do want to take just a few moments to talk about just why these are important in these cases some pretty different but i think that there is some link that a just what a startup to give us an overview. And thats this. Is the Founding Fathers in the First Congress when they did the First Amendment understood these basic principles. The government operates by coercion. Sometimes if theyre stopping drunk drivers are people running red lights and things like that. It provides order for people that are cheating or whatever, defogging folks, et cetera. But there is a human tendency defrauding folks to miss use this governmental power of coercion to either censor those who are opposing the prevailing orthodoxy at the current time, or by forcing people to basically assert their allegiance to the prevailing orthodoxy at the time. And the First Amendment is put in to basically say that congress and other states in the 14th amendment may not misuse that inherit coercive power to government to punish dissenters, to force people to say the prevailing orthodoxy. Because that changes over time. We see examples of this year, in these cases. So the Minnesota Voters Alliance case is just straight out censorship. The janus case is compelled speech via funding. And the nifla case is just straight out compelled speech. Forcing people to promote a message that they dont agree with. Now, this involves a california state law, and its targeted against these prolife Pregnancy Centers. They are all over the country but the ones in california, theres many of them there since its the largest state population, but basically what they do is this. These centers have a sole mission of encouraging expectant mothers to give their children lie. They do this by various means. Theres two types of dissenters. Some of them have medical licenses so they can do some medical things like ultrasounds for example. Some of them are unlicensed and all they do is basically good works. A supply women resources like prenatal vitamins, diapers, baby clothes, and basically counsel encouragement if theyre in a difficult life situation so they will give life to their children. Children. Well, the state of california views this as a problem that has to be fixed, and we will talk about what this problem supposedly is. But lets talk about the solution and how unconstitutional it is. So the license facilities the basically do medical procedures like ultrasounds and basically not more than that, they are not doing operation anything like that, i forced to post this sign at their facilities. Ill just read it to you. California has Public Programs that provide immediate free or lowcost access to comprehensive familyplanning services, including all fda approved methods of contraception, prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women to determine whether you qualify contact the county social Services Office at, and then a phone number is given. So to make this clear, these are prolife centers dedicated to helping expectant mothers give life to the children, are forced to put up a sign that says hey, do you relate you can get a statefunded abortion . Here, call this number and find out more information. So its obviously highly offensive to them. Those of the medically licensed once. The unlicensed facilities have to put up a a different messag, and that message is, this facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the state of california and is no license medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services. So the first thing that the women were going to this prolife centers learn that its not a medical facility, that the something negative that has to be expressed. Then to add the problems with this, the state law requires both these signs to be in english, with the state of california calls threshold languages so they do some demographic review, and if a certain Demographic Group that speaks the language of different than english is, hits the threshold, then you have to put the ads in those languages. And basically makes it easier , impossible just from the physical size of these ads or electronically on the internet or just terribly expensive so it effectively cuts off their ability to advertise at all. So we have challenged this law, a group of these prolife sentence centers and they block the entire way up and the Supreme Court has granted review in thecase. And just one little bit of Supreme Court statistical nerdish trivia, you will see this on the scotus podcast. Statistically, theres about 8000 cases a year in the Supreme Court that take about 80 and a review for a verse about two thirds of the time. Its been a constant, consistent statistic so if you go to a major friend of the party and say that review, i predict theyre going to reverse and youre going to be right two thirds of the time. I would point out that we have all lost our cases at the lower court so the fact the Supreme Court has granted review doesnt guarantee a win but it is a hopeful sign that weve been granted review in these cases. Now, what we have challenged in this case is that this is just flat out compelled speech. Especially to the medically licensed facilities. To me, its just shocking and just a raw display of governmental coercion for california to force prolife Pregnancy Centers to say hey, have you thought about getting an abortion . We want to bring that to your mind, heres the information on how to get and it will be at no cost to you. To me is just appalling. These are viewpoints and content based discriminatory, either targeting certain groups by gerrymandered so theregular doctors offices , regular ob gyn does not have to post these signs. And they do it if you look at our briefs and i will take the time to explain it here basically the only places in california that have to do this are the prolife Pregnancy Centers that give their services for free. And that to me is most shocking. What is the governments justification for this . The reason we have to do this is because these prolife places are so deceptive and they trick women into thinking they are abortion clinics. There is no evidence, theres a bunch of assertions made by abortionrights supporters to the liberal California Legislature but theres basically no evidence to this. They are also arguingthat this is commercial speech. But think about this. These are ideological opponents of abortion that are offering theirservices for free. That is not a commercial transaction and yet thats what this state is arguing and what the lower court justified as regulation of commerce. Also, what about medical disclosure laws or Something Like this . If this were a law that said theres dangers in getting an ultrasound, here they are, were going to disclose this so you can be a fully informed medical patient, maybe that would be justified. But here we have the state of california saying this. Even though you are at this place, it doesnt offer any surgical procedures let alone abortion, we want to post this sign to remind you of a surgical procedure you could have and then entice you with the fact that the state will pay for it. That has absolutely nothing to do with the normal types of governmental regulatory regulations that compel disclosures so that medical patients for example can be fully informed of their decisions. I want to end with this. One of the greatest decisions of the Supreme Court and one that all americans can be proud of was West Virginia versus barnett went into world war ii, we are fighting the nazi powers, the Supreme Court on the wisdom of the First Amendment to stop a West Virginia law in effect that forced unwilling people to say the pledge of allegiance. They reviewed as nazi supporters or whatever and all that cultural value, the Supreme Court nonetheless said the First Amendment protects the right of conscience against compelled speech and they wrote this. If there is anyfixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official , high or petty can prescribe what should be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances with permit an exception, they do not occur to us now. Thank you. [applause] are going to open it up for a question to the audience but i want to turn to the panel first. Justice kennedy, the perennial swing vote on the Supreme Court, he has a strong record on First Amendment freespeech issues so how do you think hes going to approach each of these cases . I guess ill go first. We know Justice Kennedy has already heard this issue and cast a vote on this issue and its a decision that resulted in a four quartile so we cant resume that we would necessarily think of this case the same way or even that form were split or miss but theres a reason for optimism and Justice Kennedy is pretty good on First Amendment rights and the friedrichs case was very challenging to the other side of this issue so he seems to me like a strong supporter of First Amendment rights in this context. As an advocate unconstrained trying to say what i think the justices will do in our case except i think kennedy is not, i think he is as pg paulus pointed out one of the most freespeech protectors justices and particularly in our case where sometimes conservatives are upset about his freespeech protections if they think some of his decisions because they support personal autonomy. In our case its all about personal autonomy that has nothing to do with the state interest though i think hes not going to be, ill be surprised if he is fine with the minnesota statute. Justice kennedy has been a good vote on freedom of speech and i think he and many of the others, we will see in a month with the oral argument for a monthfrom today. But i think that the California Law is such a shocking overreach and misuse of governmental power to compel speech that at least for the license the medical facilities, i think we might be looking at every justice going to strike it down. Im hoping. That would really be something. With that were going to open it up to questions to the audience so wait for the microphone and if you would state your name andplease keep it brief. We will be here in the second row. Im a colleague of the legal foundation. I wanted to mention i thought overall excellent presentations. One more thing about the minnesota voters landscape to distinguish it from just a ban on campaign related speech. The datsun is concerned about the Chilling Effects so its easy enough if youre a voter to avoid wearing the shirt that said vote for trump or vote for hillary but if you are wearing the shirt and had a shirt that said Heritage Foundation or Federalist Society or aflcio, i think its very likely you wouldnt go into the polling place wearing that shirt, even if you dont know whether that shirt would be prohibited or not. Because of the Chilling Effect of the regulation and possibility that a poll worker might take your name down for prosecution. There were news stories in the last few elections with poll workers who took issue with someone wearing a Massachusetts Institute of technology sweatshirt when mit mitt romney was on the ballot. You can see how poll workers can get confused in addition to selectively enforcingthese sorts of things. I grew up in minnesota. I voted at ballot places and i cannot imagine. I did not realize this law and i didnt think i was so fragile would be influenced by those kind of church or Something Like that. You dont seem like a special snowflake to me. Right here. The national right to work foundation, great job jacob. I have to commend all of you on Justice Kennedy. Justice gore such as it voted on this issue. Can you give your thoughts as to where you think hes going to go . What in his record supports that . I dont think i can presume to say where hes going to go. There hasnt been anything was late enough on points and there have been places where he supported First Amendment rights but nothing analogous to this that i know of so i dont feel like i can talk to that. The one thing i would point to is, and i at this point cannot call to mind any of his 10th circuit opinions. But i feel that any other areas of his brief tenure, his other First Amendment cases, im thinking of the adf case from last spring, the Trinity Lutheran case. Very strong decision there and then his questioning that he gave on the compelled speech issue during the Masterpiece Cake shop case. Thats not a whole lot of data. But i think he sounds pretty good on the First Amendment. Im going to follow jordan, i think we are going to win nine. I think thats right. I agree under minnesota. I think thats overly broad. Twopart question about the california case. First, could you elaborate on the discussion of why the abortion clinics shouldnt have to put up a sign that says you dont have to have an abortion, you can go to these family clinics and could you elaborate on what the lower courts said . The way the exemption works, they have this general law from all these things that i read. They basically have a whole series of exemptions of various clinics and medical practices that if you are not primarily, i think it is ob gyn, you are exempt from this but also, if you participate in a different California Program that basically you have to agree to either perform abortions or to refer women for abortions, and that if you do that youare exempt from this. Though these prolife places that are licensed facilities have an ideological exemption that theyre not going to refer a woman to an abortion so therefore, that deprives the only people, the only institutions that this applies to are the ones that have an ideological objection to abortion. And the other thing, one other thing i want to mention is that if california thinks that women are not informed enough, that they are dont know that they can get statefunded abortions, there is all sorts of Communication Channels that the state can use to communicate that. And basically, the only one that does, so its not like putting ads on buses or on the internet or newspapers, it basically is only requiring these prolife places to do it which to me shows the clear ideological viewpoints of discriminatory targeting of it. And the reason why we lost was basically they said the ninth circuit said that this was regulating a profession, that theres, which is not a doctrine that the Supreme Court has recognized, that government has the ability to regulate professions that are compiling free speech andthey even , even though this is a clear contentbased exclusion where the Supreme Court in another case that we won a few years ago in the town of gilbert case said any contentbased exclusion always gets strict scrutiny. The ninth circuit said yeah, theres that town of gilbert case that the Supreme Court said but we have ninth circuit president that gives us a more permissive standard and thats what were going to use. And i think that also might have been a reasonthe Supreme Court took the case. Any questions . In the back . Im andrew hamm. Im also not a lawyer for this question but could california just say okay, everyone has to post the notice whether you perform abortions, participate in the program, everybody has to post a notice. Does that then take away the target . That might be a different situation but thats clearly not what the law does so its very gerrymandered as to who have to do this. We might say that in a different case but we definitely dont have a situation here. Now at from my civil rights background, if you have a discriminatory motive or animus or whatever and lets say you consciously segregate the school and there was a series of cases in brown versus board of education, but then in some jurisdictions, they do the same thing but they would call it a neighborhood plan or they would shut down in one case all the pools. If we cant have segregated pools, the Supreme Court saw a pattern they are so you can sometimescure an unconstitutional viewpoint , based on action with a neutral law, but once the animus or the discriminatory intent is clear, you still run some problems. If thats what youre trying to do through another means. Jac question. Its a narrow question but say you have some people who are not a member of the union and their negotiating on their own. The state says look, were not exactly prounion but we can be very annoying. Were going to pay you because you have no bargaining power. Is that okay . Im just curious because that is a possibility at least in the abstract. Right now in the states where you have the mandatory fees, the union is by law the exclusive representative of all the workers whether they are members or not and thats not going to change if we prevail in this case. The union will have to represent everybody so you will have people representing themselves. You can switch to a system like that under which it would be possible for people represented by the union to get one wage and people representing themselves or another union to get paid something else. That could happen but the law is going to have to change first and i dont think the unionsare going to push to change this because they like everybodys exclusive representative whether they get paid by everybody or not. Any other questions . My name is bill omalley. In the mifflin question, the case, the only time you mentioned religion was when you read tous from barnett. And anybody would support, why arent you mentioning religion . Doesnt that bring a special strength to a First Amendment rights . [inaudible] great question. I was the main laboring at adf to put together a petition and we included both a challenge under a question presented under the free speech clause and under the free exercise clause and when the Supreme Court granted review, they said were only going to hear the free speech question though thats why you have not been hearing it, even though theres with many of the people involved in these pregnancy help questions, theyre motivated by the religious release and prolife. Thats not an issue the Supreme Court is going to concentrate on so weve been basically focusing on freedom of speech. No, i dont know. The, i think it is frequent at the Supreme Court where the advocates will put in a search petition, several questions presented. To get the whole, cover the whole range of particular constitutional provisions that will allow them to win. And sometimes its Supreme Court will say we will take all those questions presented and with some frequency they will say were going to narrow it down to this one. Im not sure what it is but thats why we have this, where emphasizing the compelled speech and the content and viewpoint discrimination nature of the law. I think we have time for one more question. Any takers . Mister orrin, there are some states that place restrictions on abortion doctors. There are certainstates that have restrictions on abortion doctors. We revise information to clients, if you win this case the Supreme Court, will those lost state challenge and will they possibly be invalidated . When i was running the circuit, i have heard people say what about all these informed consent laws that are the way you describe them, theres development, are we not challenging, are we undermining those winning this case mark and i would say no. Absolutely not. For this reason. The informed consent laws are based on the fact that the women are going to undergo a surgical procedure and just like any kind of, not just in abortion but any kind of vertical procedure, i think theres a governmental interest to make sure the patients about to undergo this are fully informed of the implications of what could happen, possible things that could go wrong, that sort of stuff so i think all of that, the basis for an informed consent law for an abortion surgical procedure is very sound and is just in the flow of all these other informed consent lost for other medical procedures. Here, and i said this before but if this were a law that said theres dangerous to getting an ultrasound, we would probably have a weaker case. But thats not what theyre saying. These women are not undergoing any type of surgical procedure for the only medical procedure the states not requiring, to say anything about an ultrasound and in fact, theyre suggesting that they get a surgical procedure, that they cant get at the place that they are at, the prolife place so this is like the antithesis of this and to use that kind of informed consent , they say well, we require the abortion doctors toinform the women. Its so illogical and such a non sequitur i think it doesnt even fit here so therefore i dont think theres any undermining of those claws area. With that we come to the endof our time so join me in thanking our panelists. [inaudible conversation] coming up later today on our companion network, a discussion on politics and race relations. It starts at 4 30 p. M. Eastern live from new america in washington dc. And then at 7 pm eastern on cspan, the White House Correspondents Association will host a conversation with terra Huckabee Sanders and former White House Press secretary mccurry following a Panel Discussion with white house correspondents. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies. And today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house. The Supreme Court. And Public Policy events in washington dc and around the country. Cspan is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. Tonight on cspan2, its book tv in prime time in the publishing industry. We will start at 8 pm with a tour of regular republishing in an interview with employees and former publisher and editorial director news very pressed peter today talks about the duties of a book editor. After that look at Columbia University press on how the University Publishers work and we will end with editorinchief of a right robert while receiving editorial Excellence Award from the international organization. Its book tv in prime time all this week on cspan2 starting at 8 pm eastern. Health and Human Services secretary alice is our testify before the Senate Finance Committee Last week regarding the president s proposed budget for fiscal year 2019. The answer questions about medicare and medicaid funding, the opioid academic, communitse
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.