North Dakota's Mandatory Bar Fees Are Constitutional, Rules Federal Appeals Panel
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that there was no constitutional violation in the bar association's procedures for collecting members' dues and that attorney Arnold Fleck's First Amendment association claim failed because he forfeited the issue in the district court.
August 30, 2019 at 01:48 PM
4 minute read
A federal appellate court on Friday rejected a First Amendment challenge to North Dakota's mandatory bar association.
A three-judge panel of the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that there was no constitutional violation in the bar association's procedures for collecting members' dues and that attorney Arnold Fleck's First Amendment association claim failed because he forfeited the issue in the district court.
The panel actually was revisiting its earlier ruling in favor of the bar association after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded that ruling for reconsideration in light of the justices' 5-4 decision last year in Janus v. AFSCME. In Janus, the majority overruled a decades-old decision upholding the constitutionality of dues paid by nonmembers of public sector unions required to represent them. The high court also held the unions could not deduct agency fees from nonmembers' wages unless the nonmembers affirmatively consented.
On remand in Fleck v. Wetch, Fleck argued that Janus required reversal of the district court's decision in favor of the bar association, because Janus had undermined the theoretical underpinnings of Keller v. State Bar of California, a 1990 Supreme Court ruling in which the justices held that an integrated bar can, consistent with the First Amendment, use a member's compulsory fees to fund activities germane to "regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services," but not for political or ideological activities.
"Assuming without deciding that Keller 'left the door open' to pursue this freedom of association claim in the district court and in this court, Fleck explicitly chose not to do so," wrote Judge James Loken of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, joined by Judges Steven Colloton and Jane Kelly. "Based on prior Supreme Court precedent, we conclude the record is inadequate as the result of Fleck forfeiting the issue in the district court and on appeal. Accordingly, we decline to invoke our discretion to take up this claim for the first time on remand."
As to Fleck's claim that the bar's fee procedures violate Janus and the First Amendment, the panel said a member's right to pay or refuse to pay dues to subsidize non-chargeable expenses is clearly explained on the fee statement in advance of the member consenting to pay by delivering a check to the bar association.
"Doing nothing may violate a member's obligations to pay dues, but it does not result in the member paying dues that he or she has not affirmatively consented to pay," wrote Loken. "The best that can be said for Fleck's argument is that a busy or careless lawyer might fill out the fee statement and write a check to [State Bar Association of North Dakota] for the full annual dues without noticing the option to take the Keller deduction. The record contains no evidence this has ever happened or is likely to happen."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNelson Mullins, Greenberg Traurig, Jones Day Have Established Themselves As Biggest Outsiders in Atlanta Legal Market
7 minute readShareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
GOP Trifecta in Washington Could Put Litigation Finance Industry Under Pressure
NLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
Trending Stories
- 1Lawyers Among Those Convicted as Hong Kong's High Court Sentences 45 Activists to Prison
- 2'We’re Here to Empower People to Make Good Decisions': Why Compliance Chiefs Must Learn to Think Like a Businessperson
- 3People in the News—Nov. 19, 2024—Pond Lehocky, Duane Morris
- 4Court System's Franklin H. Williams Judicial Commission Presents Annual Diversity Awards
- 5Commentary: James Madison, Meet Matt Gaetz
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250