Mandatory Union Fees Struck Down at Supreme Court

its final day of the term. Labor unions lost and the Trump administration one, as the Court ruled that government employees have a constitutional right not to pay union fees, overturning forty years of precedent. Joining me is Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg's store. Greg tell us about the opinion, Hi, Junior, as you said? Five to four. Justice Samilader wrote the

majority opinion, excuse me for the conservative um. He said that when unions take positions in collective bargaining, they are taking positions on matter of public concern, and for that reason, workers have a First Amendment right not to contribute to that work of the union, even though the union is doing things that might also benefit the workers. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the minority in opinion with some fervor.

She said there's no sugarcoat in today's opinion. The majority overthrows a decision entrenched in this nation's law and its economic life for over forty years. Tell us about what

she talked about that overthrowing of the about decision. Yeah, the Aboud decision in nineteen seventy seven ruling that said that public sector unions could collect one are known as the agency thieves UH from non members, from employees who say, I don't want to belong to the union, but the union could still require them to pay for the cost of collective bargaining. That seven ruling did put some limits, said that workers don't have to fund ideological or political activities.

And the Supreme Court today said that was a bad decision. We are throwing it out. And Injustice Kagan's dissent, she said, this is going to have the dramatic consequences for the ability of governments to manage their workplaces. Um, they might, she said, lose the ability to have a single union that they know represents all the all the workers in the in the workforce. Um. And there could be all sorts of consequences that that we're going to have to

learn about down the road. Gregg This really really wasn't a surprise. It wasn't like the travel ban because of the history of this case. Tell us about that history. Yeah, this was This was how the most expected decision of the term. Aldo. It took a while to get it out.

The Court had been considering this issue a couple of years ago when Justice Scalia was on the court, and it looked like they were poised to issue a decision much like this, a five four decision that would have overturned the boot and said workers have every speech right not to pay these fees. Uh. And then Scalia died and the Court ended up splitting evenly four to four in that case. So once uh, Donald Trump was able to fill that vacancy with with Justice Neil Gorsage, the

Conservatives had their fifth vote. The Court agreed this term to take up this case, and uh, you know, the only hope for for the liberals seemed to be winning over Justice Coursers, who of course is a rather conservative conservative justice. And uh indeed he did what was expected and join the Conservatives to overturn the about decision. There are a series of five to four victories for Conservatives this term, and several controversial cases like yesterday's travel Band.

You wrote a story analyzing this entitled when it comes to Donald Trump, The U. S. Supreme Court apparently is as divided as the rest of the country. Tell me about the analysis you went through there. Yeah, well so I'm still looking into this today. Obviously, the Trump travel band decision divides the court five to four. You have the five Republican appointed justices on one side, the four UH Democratic appointed justices on the other time. And uh,

this is a pattern that has dominated this this term. Um, we haven't had any of those cases where just as Anthony Kennedy joins the Liberals in a in a five for UH majority. So on the travel ban, on the Union fees, UH, the the American Express an I trust case, the the other day UH Texas Voting District UH jurymandering case the court decided earlier this week, the case involving in an abortion pregnancy centers. I mean, the list goes on and on, the very important cases that were decided

by that that single vote. Greg you mentioned Justice Kennedy, who was this, you know, the swing vote and seen as the swing vote. And he's everyone says he might be retiring. We don't know if you you will or not. Probably not right today, but as of now know okay, So is he getting more conservative in his thinking or is it just the kinds of cases that are facing

the court. A big part of it was the kind of cases so um uh you know, one, if I didn't mention the case involving arbitration agreements signed by employees, Justice Kennedy joined the majority to say that companies can enforce those arbitration agreements and prevent workers from from uh filing class action lawsuits. Well, that's that's the kind of issue that the Court is dealt with repeatedly. We know

that Justice Kennedy is with the conservatives on that. Um. The biggest surprise this term from Justice Kennedy, I think was that in some of those cases where liberals sometimes can can get him on their side, uh, the case involving the baker who uh didn't want to make cakes for same sex weddings, uh, the cases involving partisan jerrymandry, those seem like at least opportunities for the liberals to to to uh, to persuade Justice Kennedy to be on

their side, and those could have been significant victories for the left. Both of those issues that the Court essentially punted, didn't come out with anything big on the in the cases that mattered. It was. It was the cases where Kennedy was with the Conservatives where the Court had ended up doing something big. All right, Greg, a much deserve vacation coming up for you. Thank you so much for all your reporting this term. That's Bloomberg News Supreme Court

report at Greg's store. Attorney General Jeff Sessions held firm over the Trump administration zero tolerance immigration policy at a law enforcement conference in Nevada on Monday. The President has made this clear. We're going to continue to prosecute those adults who in a here illegally. We are going to do everything in our power, however, to avoid separating families. Sessions now has no choice whether he feels it's in

his power or not. A California federal judge has given the Trump administration two weeks to reunite immigrant children under the age of five who were separated from their families at border crossings, and thirty days is to reunite children five and older. Judge Danis Abra has also ordered the administration to stop detaining parents without their children and to stop deporting parents who have been separated from their children, joining me as Lorie Nessel, director of the Center for

Social Justice at Seton Hall University School of Law. Laurie. The judge blamed the Trump administration. Tell us how he described what he called the chaotic circumstance. Sure, I mean the situation, um, you know, which has gotten a lot of coverage, is that children were being torn away from their parents at the border. And um, you know, as as also has been made publicly available, is that children

have gotten lost by a margin the system. It was a you know, an attempt to criminalize all immigrants, asylum seekers at the southern border, take their children away as a means of trying to deter people and send a message that they shouldn't be coming to this country, even if they fear for their lives. And it was done in such a way that there's been incredible anguish and trauma and and thousands of children, many of whom are

unaccounted for. And the judge also said that the government hasn't as an affirmative duty to reunite parents with their children. But he also pointed out that the government takes account of property all the time of defendants and cases and

never loses the property. How did they lose the children? Right? Well? Well, and what this really raises is that, I mean, these are human beings, right, and they're coming to our country largely to seek protection from an incredibly dangerous conditions in their home country, and we do the government has an obligation, both under international law and under our immigration laws to treat people with dignity and to provide them in a

humane way with the chance to seek protection. They don't have to be granted protection, but they have to be allowed to seek protection. And so by um doing away with any form of discretion and completely criminalizing this population, what's happened is that it just you know, we've seen this in so many other instances with this administration. Things are not thought out or or planned. It's just an

announcement that's made and then there there. It wasn't done with the proper agencies, and it wasn't clear what was happening to these children where they were being sent, who was ultimately responsible. Um, you know, it's it's an incredible, incredible, um, you know, crisis and really dark moment in our history that that this has happened, and it's happening. So what happens now that the judge and the judge said he

felt that he needed to issue an order. Now he has this order which is pretty stark as to what has to happen. But will the government be able to do that? Well, that that's a good question. I mean, so there is now, like you say, there's an order, there's a very set amount of time in order to reunify these traumatized children with their traumatized parents. UM. But yeah, it's going to take some work in terms of tracking

them down. I know that um lots of the not for profit organizations around the country are UM really pitching in in terms of trying to get information and interview kids and locate and um, you know, making efforts to try to make sure that families can be reunited. The judge was very specific in his order. He said that in his decision as well. He said that it's not enough that the government gives out eight hundred numbers that don't answer. They have to make an affirmative They have

an affirmative duty to actually reunite the families. And that's more than the government has accepted in the past. Exactly, and and and I mean what that points to is that, I mean, this is the family separation is um, you know, is horrific, but it comes on top of a system that already has so many problems and where there's just a lack of basic fairness throughout. So, for example, a big part of the problem is that there's no right to have a lawyer if you can't afford one in

these proceedings. And as we know, the President has recently said, well, let's not even give them any due process, Let's not have people even go before a judge before they're deported. And so it all really comes together to make this

incredibly chaotic situation. Because if there were an orderly process, if there were more immigration judges, another thing that the administration has been against doing, increasing the number of immigration judges, if there was a right to have a lawyer presence so that these people, both the adults and their children could understand what's at sake, UM, then there would be much easier to reunite, much easier to do things in

the proper way. But the problem now is that all of those pieces come together and create this storm where we have this this humanitarian crisis of lost children. So Lorie in light of the judge's order, can the Trump administration continue with the zero tolerance policy or does the judges order actually circumvent that well, So so there there

there are a couple of different pieces of litigation. The the injunction that was issued today UM is specific to saying that the UM that the governments can't detain parents without their children unless there's a finding that the parents are unfit or opposed danger. And then as you mentioned,

there's the specific time frames for the need to reunify. However, the injunction and again it's just the injunction, the case will go forward, UM, doesn't doesn't go as far as to say that the entire process has to sub or that families can't be detained. Now, there is other litigation. UM. There is a lawsuit UM the eighteen different states across the country joined in that was filed yesterday UM, and we'll have to see what happens with with that litigation.

Because that UM that request auto release in terms of really asking for UM, the whole criminalization and denying asylum secrets a chance to seek protection being joined a minute here, President Trump has made the distinction at times between families crossing into the US illegally between checkpoints and those who are requesting asylum at the border crossings. But the judge didn't make that distinction. What do you what's your reaction

to that right? Because the and and that it's a problem that that what should happen is that again, under under our law, domestic law as well as international law, anyone that's seeking protection should be given that right to seek protection. But because the administration has been completely undermining that legal right, it's impossible to tell then who's in need of protection, who's coming for economic reasons or some

mix um. But the issue is that you know that according to this injunction, everyone who wants to seek protection, who came here because our lives in danger, should be given the opportunity to do that. Well, then, Laurie, we'll have to leave it there. There's so much to discuss on this topic because there is a lot of confusion. That's Lori Nestle. She's directed the Center for Social Justice at Seton Hall University School of Law. Thanks for listening

to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com. Slash Podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg