Parents Tell Supreme Court That Upcoming Friedrichs Union Dues Case Is Also a Classroom Issue

Parents who are passionate about ensuring a high-quality education for their children have been actively engaged in advocacy at various levels of government, from local school boards to state legislatures and even the United States Supreme Court.

A group of twelve parents have recently submitted a legal brief in support of Rebecca Friedrichs and other teachers who are currently suing to overturn California laws mandating union dues, even if teachers disagree with the union’s positions. The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for this case on January 11th.

Gwen Samuels, President of the Connecticut Parents Union and a parent of four children attending public schools, stressed the importance of recognizing that this discussion is not isolated but directly affects children.

The parents’ argument centers around three key issues that they believe highlight the intersection between mandatory dues and education reform: compensation and classroom assignment based on seniority, the policies that hinder the removal of ineffective teachers, and "last in, first out" (LIFO) rules that prioritize laying off the newest educators based on seniority rather than performance. They contend that these policies are major contributing factors to the decline of public schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods and a civil rights crisis that sentences underprivileged youth to failing schools.

Gloria Romero, a former California state senator who authored the state’s parent trigger law enabling parents to advocate for changes in low-performing schools, spearheaded the filing of the brief. She described Friedrichs’ legal battle as a "David vs. Goliath fight."

Romero emphasized that the parents who signed the brief understand that significant education reforms have often come about through legal interventions, citing landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Mendez v. Westminster, which addressed the segregation of Mexican-American students in California.

Under current federal law, teachers have the option to opt out of paying the portion of union dues that directly contribute to political activities. Friedrichs and her fellow teachers argue that traditional union activities, including collective bargaining, should be considered political activity because they influence public policy and state budgets.

Although the legal foundation of the case centers on whether compelling teachers to support unions violates their First Amendment rights, the parents’ brief focuses primarily on the educational consequences of mandatory dues.

Dmitri Mehlhorn, a co-founder and board member of StudentsFirst, an education reform group focused on improving teacher quality and advocating for school choice and equity, pointed out that recent First Amendment judgments by the Supreme Court have been subject to interpretation. Mehlhorn believes it is crucial to remind the justices of the real issues at stake in this case.

Romero argues that once teachers are no longer obligated to pay dues, the substantial funds unions have used to resist reforms will dwindle. She claims that this change will allow minority and economically disadvantaged parents to witness the reforms they have been fighting for.

Romero stated, "We are making the connection between freedom of association and education reform, highlighting its significance in the realm of education."

Despite facing opposition, including the attorney general of her home state and a coalition of major civil rights organizations like the NAACP and ACLU, Samuels remains optimistic. She believes that it is crucial for parents and activists to support teachers like Friedrichs and challenge the unions’ narrative that only right-wing individuals and wealthy donors are involved in this cause.

Samuels was also motivated by the parallel she sees between teachers lacking the choice to support unions and parents who face limited educational options for their children. She highlights that both situations force individuals into actions that may not be in the best interest of the children involved.

Ultimately, Samuels hopes that the justices of the Supreme Court will rise above partisan influences and focus on the fundamental issues at hand.

Subscribe to Newsletter and receive stories just like these directly in your email inbox.