Sign Up For Our Newsletter

As I stood shivering in the frigid morning air, my mind scrolled back to all the events that have transpired to bring me to this moment.  In particular I remembered a conversation I had with a seasoned veteran teacher at my school who told me that the wheels of justice turn slowly, but they do turn.  My reminiscing was brutally interrupted by the cutting wind that was blowing at 5:00 a.m. as I held on tightly to my cup of coffee, hoping to suck out every ounce of heat I could.  Here I was standing with a number of teachers on the steps of the Supreme Court of the United States, hoping to get a seat to hear oral arguments in a case that had it origins some 14 years ago.

In 1992, our state had just passed a new campaign finance law that required, among other things, unions to get permission before they used members’ dues for politics.  I had always been troubled by the political leanings of our union and the fact that my money was being used to support issues and causes that I opposed.  I entered this fight when I heard of Cindy Omlin and Barb Amidon, two teachers who had started a grassroots organization of teachers to hold the union accountable, and contacted them.  They had discovered that the union had “loaned” its political arm, WEA-PAC, hundreds of thousands of dollars just prior to this new law taking effect.  They soon “forgave the loan,” resulting in our minds to be a clear violation of this new law.

Of course the union did not see it that way, nor did the Democrat state attorney general, who received support from the union in the past.  With nowhere else to turn, we asked Bob Williams of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation if he could help us.  Bob was a former state legislator and auditor and is a big reason this case was before the court that morning.  He has been an incredible advocate for our cause at great personal and professional expense to him and his organization.  But Bob helped us for the same reason I and teachers across the land were willing to stand in line that morning – because freedom matters.

The Supreme Court had agreed to take our case due to a strange ruling from our state Supreme Court.  The majority had ruled the initiative was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment rights of the union to advocate for their members.  Apparently, the First Amendment rights of the individual teachers were not as important as those of the union.  Because our case Davenport vs. WEA was merged with Washington State vs. WEA, the state attorney general would also be presenting oral arguments.  Milton Chappell of the National Right to Work Foundation had agreed to take our case and would have his first chance to argue before the Court after years of fighting for the rights of workers.  Sometimes the government also will ask to argue on behalf of an issue and the Solicitor General of the United States would also be given time to argue on behalf of our side.  That presented a dilemma.  There was only time for two lawyers to argue on our behalf and if the government asks to speak, they will speak.  In an incredible act of humility and selflessness, Milton Chappell stepped aside and assisted from the bench without getting to fulfill the dream of every lawyer.

As we were led up the stairs to enter the courtroom we were excited beyond belief.  We had gotten in line in time to assure ourselves a seat.  Cindy Omlin, Executive Director of Northwest Professional Educators Association and one of the two original teachers who started this cause years before, walked up ahead of us as she had been given a reserved seat for the hearing.  It seemed wrong to me that her compatriot and fellow challenger Barb Amidon, who was unable to make the trip, was not by her side walking up those steps next to her on this historic day.  After passing through two security checkpoints we were finally seated in the historic room.  With little fanfare and quite abruptly, the members of the court took their seats and got down to the serious business at hand.  We were the second case on the docket that morning.

Attorney General McKenna was first to speak.  It was quite clear that his job was to protect the interests of the state in terms of the law that was violated and not necessarily the first amendment rights of the individual teachers.  This line of argument confused Justice Alito who tried, it seemed, to change McKenna’s direction of argument by questions he raised regarding individual teachers rights.  This is where Milton Chappell would have really helped our case.  Milt gets it.  He understands the frustration of every union member that has even one penny of their hard earned money used to support a cause or issue they don’t support.  He has been fighting this fight for many years and on many fronts.  He should have had his day in court.

Paul Clement was next to speak and quickly returned the argument to where it belongs.  He argued that the problem of the lower court’s ruling is that they failed to realize the constitutional rights needing protection in this case were “principally the rights of the individual workers.”  He also asked the court to not only overturn this decision but to leave room for play in this area of labor law.  I just about jumped out of my seat at this point with applause.  Clement was asking them not to rule on the narrow questions of this case but to consider the unbelievable power the government has given unions to reach into the pockets of its members to use their own money for politics.

Representing the union was John West.  This was the most entertaining part of the morning, both in terms of the stretches that were being attempted by West to support his case and by the questions the justices threw back at the struggling attorney.  Justice Kennedy scolded West because he argued like the rights of the individual teachers were not at issue here.  Justice Souter chided West on the fact that the states have every right to go further to protect workers rights than what has been done at the federal level.  He then reminded West that the funds in question were not the union’s funds as West kept asserting, but those of the individual teachers who have opted out.  My absolute favorite moment was when Justice Alito told West that it was highly unlikely that teachers who have opted out of union membership would want to have their money spent on the politics of the union.  When (as shown on page 40 of the transcript) Mr. West responded, “I absolutely disagree with you,” you could hear the chuckles ripple across the room.

We left the courtroom that day with a feeling of deep satisfaction.  After years and years of setbacks in our battle in the lower courts, it seemed to us that even though Milt was not there to present our case, the justices of the Supreme Court also “got it.”  The questions they raised and the way they challenged John West made it clear that our case was in good hands and a positive outcome was likely.  The only trouble we would have was to wait at least 3 months longer to hear the verdict.  It seems the wheels of justice will have to continue turning a little longer.

Jeff Leer is a teacher and coach in Northwest Washington and is a founding member of Northwest Professional Educators Association, an association of teachers interested in returning professionalism to teaching.