Based on oral argument
commentators seem to think that the case of
Harris v Quinn may result in a major ruling from SCOTUS. Garrett Epps of the Atlantic has a
lengthy analysis as well and identifies Scalia as the swing vote.
In brief, a decade ago IL decided that the home-care workers paid by Medicaid funds should be treated as employees of the state. Furthermore as state employees they should be able to organize, and once organized home-care workers who did not join the union would still be required to pay a fee to the union to cover the costs of collective bargaining. One such worker is a mother of a disabled child who is eligible to receive Medicaid funds. She objects to being a state worker and diverting part of her income to union dues merely to care for her child under Medicaid. The key constitutional argument seems to be that since the union petitions the government for wage and other benefits for the home health care workers, her required payment interferes with her first amendment rights. The other side cites the 1977 precedent of
Aboud v Detroid Board of Education in defense of these agency fees.
