The Washington Post recently reported that the U.S. Supreme Court is once again on track to take its least number of cases in modern history.  A case in which the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) is a named party recently contributed to that statistic.

At the first conference following the U.S. Supreme Court's winter recess, the Court denied certiorari in the case of Carmouche, et al. v. Center for Individual Freedom.  The case, on appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, involved CFIF's legal challenge to Louisiana's Campaign Finance Disclosure Act.  Last spring, the Fifth Circuit agreed with CFIF's challenge to the Act and its enforcement by ruling that Louisiana's campaign finance law does not restrict or regulate independent political issue advertising.  CFIF argued and the Fifth Circuit agreed that Louisiana's campaign finance law was vague and potentially overbroad, leading to a chilling effect on political free speech protected by the First Amendment.

The High Court's refusal to hear the case was a victory for CFIF, the citizens of Louisiana and all residing in the Fifth Circuit as it is now clear that Louisiana's campaign finance law does not prevent advocacy groups and citizens from freely speaking about their elected representatives when it matters most --at election time. 

Also in Supreme Court news, oral arguments were heard this week in the consolidated "union fees" cases of Davenport v. WEA and Washington v. WEA.  This fall, CFIF, joining with the Cato Institute and Reason Foundation, filed an amicus curiae or "friend of the Court" brief in the combined cases.  The brief asks the High Court to prevent labor unions from using non-member dues and "agency shop fees" on unauthorized political activity. 

In 1992, the voters of Washington State overwhelmingly approved a "paycheck protection" initiative requiring labor unions to get "affirmative consent" from non-members before using their "agency shop fees" for political activism or to support political candidates, as well as other matters not related to collective bargaining.  However, the Washington State Supreme Court recently ruled that such affirmative consent was too costly a burden and somehow violated labor unions' First Amendment rights.

The brief notes, "In contrast to the clear First Amendment rights of nonmembers to remain silent and unassociated with the union's political activities, the union has no First Amendment right to extract excess agency fees and simply presume an expressive association with nonmembers who have conspicuously declined to join the union."

A ruling is expected this spring.