Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

Page

Page United States v. Alcon Labora United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. tories, 636 F. 2d 876 623 19

616 United States v. Antill, 615 F. United States v. Martinez2d 648

132 Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 450-458, United States v. Avery, 717 F.

463, 465, 467, 471, 472 2d 1020

602, 610 United States v. Mata-Abundiz, United States v. Barrios

717 F. 2d 1277

602, 610 Moriera, 872 F. 2d 12

153 United States v. Meyer, 827 F. United States v. Bent-Santana,

2d 943

153 774 F. 2d 1545

153 United States v. Mine Workers, United States v. Brignoni

330 U.S. 258

396, 628 Ponce, 422 U.S. 873

457,

United States v. Mississippi 463, 465

Tax Comm'n, 412 U.S. 363 38 United States v. Caggiano, 899

United States v. Mitchell, 445
F. 2d 99

152
U.S. 535

423 United States v. Chadwick, 433

United States v. Nobles, 422
U.S. 1

141
U.S. 225

596 United States v. Cortez, 449

United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 411

U.S. 367 330

314, 315, 318 United States v. Curtiss

United States v. Oregon State Wright Export Corp., 299

Medical Society, 343 U.S.

326 U.S. 304

402 354 United States v. Darusmont,

United States v. Ortiz, 422

U.S. 891 449 U.S. 292

463, 465 40

United States v. Pennsylvania United States v. Dionisio, 410

Industrial Chemical Corp., U.S. 1

592, 598

411 U.S. 655 427, 434, 436 United States v. Estate of Don

United States v. Perry, 815 F. nelly, 397 U.S. 286

190,
2d 1100

153 196, 215, 218, 223, 224

United States v. Peterson, 867 United States v. Glen-Archila,

F. 2d 1110

153 677 F. 2d 809

602, 610

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. United States v. Hemme, 476

696

141, 144 U.S. 558

40

United States v. Poulos, 895 F. United States v. Henry, 447

2d 1113

153 U.S. 264

299, 302, 307

United States v. Price, 361 U.S. United States v. Holzman, 871

304

650 F. 2d 1496

153

United States v. Randall, 401 United States v. Horton, 873 F.

U.S. 513

63, 65 2d 180

601

United States v. Roberts, 644 United States v. Jacobsen, 466

F. 2d 683

132 U.S. 109

133, 134

United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. United States v. James, 478

798

133, 141, 143 U.S. 597

237, 238

United States v. Schooner United States v. Jefferson

Peggy, 1 Cranch 103

222 Electric Mfg. Co., 291 U.S. United States v. Sokolow, 490 386 47, 48 U.S. 1

329 United States v. Johnson, 457 United States v. Sperry Corp., U.S. 537 178 493 U.S. 52

40 United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. United States v. $10,000 in U.S. 252

13 Currency, 780 F. 2d 213 132

Page United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392

432, 433 United States v. Tranquillo, 330 F. Supp. 871

148 United States v. United States

Coin & Currency, 401 U.S.
715

198 United States v. United States

District Court, Eastern Dist.

of Mich., 407 U.S. 297 144 United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249

141 United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218

591, 598, 607 United States v. Wheeling

Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 818
F. 2d 1077

540 United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U.S. 198

66 United States v. Wise, 370 U.S. 405

650 United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F. 2d 720

538 Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1

41 Utah Power & Light Co. v.

United States, 243 U.S.
389

420 Vermont Yankee Nuclear

Power Corp. v. Natural Re-
sources Defense Council, 435
U.S. 519

81, 653-655 Village. See name of village. Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v.

Virginia Citizens Consumer

Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 108 Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38

249, 250, 264, 269, 286, 287 Walters v. National Assn. of

Radiation Survivors, 473
U.S. 305

251, 469 Ward v. Love County Bd. of Comm’rs, 253 U.S. 17

33,

34, 38, 39, 45, 366 Washington Health Facilities

Assn. v. Washington Dept. of
Social and Health Services,
698 F. 2d 964

518 Weatherford v. State, 286 Ark. 376

603

Page Webster v. Sowders, 846 F. 2d 1032

408 Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134 40 Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc., 248

U.S. App. D. C. 255 391, 399 West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 250,

287, 290, 318 West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey, 885 F. 2d 11 512,

518, 520 White v. Hart, 13 Wall. 646 382 White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59

178 White v. New Hampshire Dept.

of Employment Security, 455
U.S. 445

395, 398 White Mountain Apache

Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S.
136

27 Wicks v. State, 552 A. 2d 462

145 Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263

233-235, 242, 243, 248, 251-253, 259, 260, 262, 263, 265–268, 271–

279, 281–284, 287, 291 Wiggins v. State, 315 Md. 232 150 Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58

28,

365, 376, 383 Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654

915 Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646

198, 200 Williams v. Vermont, 472 U.S. 14

27, 32, 176, 211 Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261

378 Wisconsin Hospital Assn. v.

Reivitz, 733 F. 2d 1226 520 Wolfenbarger v. Williams, 826 F. 2d 930

132, 153 Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308

383 Woodbridge v. Worcester State

Hospital, 384 Mass. 38 365 Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280

918

Page Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515

368 Wright v. Roanoke Redevelop

ment and Housing Authority,
479 U.S. 418

508512, 519–523, 526, 527 Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309

463 Yellow Freight System, Inc. v.

Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820 368 Zaldivar v. Los Angeles, 780 F. 2d 823

399

Page Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862

919 Zauderer v. Office of Dis

ciplinary Counsel of Supreme
Court of Ohio, 471
U.S. 626

107,

114, 115, 118, 120 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazel

tine Research, Inc., 395 U.S.
100

573 Zipes v. Trans World Airlines,

Inc., 455 U.S. 385 221, 439

CASES ADJUDGED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

AT

OCTOBER TERM, 1989

KELLER ET AL. V. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 88–1905. Argued February 27, 1990-Decided June 4, 1990 Respondent State Bar of California (State Bar) is an “integrated bar”

i. e., an association of attorneys in which membership and dues are required as a condition of practicing law-created under state law to regulate the State's legal profession. In fulfilling its broad statutory mission to “promote the improvement of the administration of justice,” the Bar uses its membership dues for self-regulatory functions, such as formulating rules of professional conduct and disciplining members for misconduct. It also uses dues to lobby the legislature and other governmental agencies, file amicus curiae briefs in pending cases, hold an annual delegates conference for the debate of current issues and the approval of resolutions, and engage in educational programs. Petitioners, State Bar members, brought suit in state court claiming that through these latter activities the Bar expends mandatory dues payments to advance political and ideological causes to which they do not subscribe, in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. They requested, inter alia, an injunction restraining the Bar from using mandatory dues or its name to advance political and ideological causes or beliefs. The court granted summary judgment to the Bar on the grounds that it is a governmental agency and therefore permitted under the First Amendment to engage in the challenged activities. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that, while the Bar's regulatory activities were similar to those of a government agency, its “administration-of-justice” functions were more akin to the activities of a labor union. Relying on the analysis of Abood v. Detroit Bd. of

1

[blocks in formation]

Education, 431 U. S. 209– which prohibits the agency-shop dues of dissenting nonunion employees from being used to support political and ideological union causes that are unrelated to collective bargaining activities - the court held that the Bar's activities could be financed from mandatory dues only if a particular action served a state interest important enough to overcome the interference with dissenters' First Amendment rights. The State Supreme Court reversed, reasoning that the Bar was a “government agency” that could use its dues for any purpose within the scope of its statutory authority, and that subjecting the Bar's activities to First Amendment scrutiny would place an “extraordinary burden” on its statutory mission. With the exception of certain election campaigning, the court found that all of the challenged activities fell within the

Bar's statutory authority. Held:

1. The State Bar's use of petitioners' compulsory dues to finance political and ideological activities with which petitioners disagree violates their First Amendment right of free speech when such expenditures are not necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services. Pp. 9–17.

(a) The State Supreme Court's determination that the State Bar is a "government agency” for the purposes of state law is not binding on this Court when such a determination is essential to the decision of a federal question. The State Bar is not a typical “government agency.” The Bar's principal funding comes from dues levied on its members rather than from appropriations made by the legislature; its membership is composed solely of lawyers admitted to practice in the State; and its services by way of governance of the profession are essentially advisory in nature, since the ultimate responsibility of such governance is reserved by state law to the State Supreme Court. By contrast, there is a substantial analogy between the relationship of the Bar and its members and that of unions and their members. Just as it is appropriate that employees who receive the benefit of union negotiation with their employer pay their fair share of the cost of that process by paying agency-shop dues, it is entirely appropriate that lawyers who derive benefit from the status of being admitted to practice before the courts should be called upon to pay a fair share of the cost of the professional involvement in this effort. The State Bar was created, not to participate in the general government of the State, but to provide specialized professional advice to those with the ultimate responsibility of governing the legal profession. These differences between the State Bar and traditional government agencies render unavailing respondents' argument that it is not subject to the same constitutional rule with respect to the use of compulsory dues as are labor unions. Pp. 10–13.

« PředchozíPokračovat »