U. S. Supreme Court deals blows to unions and foreign governments, plus practice tip.

The U. S. Supreme Court has dealt a severe blow to unions (maybe to their PACs) by UNANIMOUSLY ruling in, DAVENPORT ET AL. v. WASHINGTON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, that though "[t]he National Labor Relations Act permits States to regulate their labor relationships with public employees[ including] authoriz[ing many states'] public-sector unions to negotiate agency-shop agreements that entitle a union to levy fees on employees who are not union members but whom the union represents in collective bargaining", but the act does NOT trump "the First Amendment [which] prohibits public-sector unions from using objecting non-members’ fees for ideological purposes not germane to the union’s collective-bargaining duties". As such, "unions must therefore observe various procedural requirements to ensure that an objecting nonmember can keep his fees from being used for such purposes".

What does this ruling mean for the lay person? It means that if you are forced to pay union dues so that a union can negotiate with your employer for wages and benefits but you are NOT a member of that union, then the union MUST get your permission to spend a portion of your dues earmarked for lobbying on issues that you disapprove of -- such as abortion. That is why this is a blow to unions who like to pull employees' dues to lobby for issues supported by (an almost certain) liberal majority, with no way for a non union employee to object to it.

In another case, PERMANENT MISSION OF INDIA TO THE UNITED NATIONS ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW YORK, the court held, 7 to 2, that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), "does not immunize a foreign government (in this case, India and Mongolia) from a lawsuit (by City of New York) to declare the validity of tax liens [held by New York City] on property held by the sovereign [India and Mongolia] for the purpose of housing its employees."

For the lay person, the case says that a foreign country will not escape taxes on the part of its building in which it houses its employees, regardless of whether that same building also is where it transacts its foreign business.

The third case released today is for those who practice law. It is a 6 to 3 decision in BOWLES v. RUSSELL, WARDEN, which stands for the proposition that "[t]he taking of an appeal in a civil case within the time prescribed by statute is 'mandatory and jurisdictional.'" "There is a significant distinction between time limitations set forth in a statute, which limit a court’s jurisdiction, and those based on court rules, which do not" the court noted before concluding that "[] when an appeal has not been prosecuted in the manner directed, within the time limited by the acts of Congress, it must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction."

NOTE: For practitioners, what is sad about this case is that the District Judge gave the litigant 17 days (3 more than mandated by statute) and the Supreme Court CORRECTLY ruled that the lower court had NO power to enlarge the statutory time limit.

A word to the wise: FOLLOW the statute!

Comments, if you have any.