Public sector unions currently require workers, no matter if they are members, to pay agency shop fees, in accordance to Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. However, the upcoming case of Friedrich v. California Teachers Association challenges this ruling. Friedrich argues that paying agency shop fees contradicts her 1st Amendment right of Freedom of Speech. This would be because, presumably, thirty percent of agency shop fees go towards political tendencies that, in this cause, contradict her own ("Supreme Court to hear"). This case reflects a recent Supreme Court case, Harris v. Quinn, which similarly challenged Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in that forcibly collecting union dues violates the first amendment. Five of the justices ruled in the Harris v. Quinn case that it was unconstitutional to force non-union workers to…show more content… Quinn, there is an insight into how the supreme court justices might rule on Friedrich v. California Teachers Association. The criticism of Abood taken by the more conservative judges reflects that they might be willing to overturn the 1977 case on the precedent that there is no definitive way to ensure union dues don’t go towards political PACs, considering the very concept of what unions achieve is a political stance. As of recently there has been a constant 5-4 split in the justices, that usually relies on Anthony Kennedy’s vote for the majority. Kennedy, although appointed by Ronald Reagan, flips between a liberal and conservative viewpoint. In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, he ruled on the liberal side, however, it is plausible that Kennedy will vote in favor of Friedrich due to his viewpoints on freedom of speech. Overall, the issue of Friedrich v. California Teachers Association, looks like it is going to be ruled on behalf of Friedrich, which reflects the overall American standpoint of ruling for the right of the individual and upholding their first amendment right for freedom of
