The Bush Administration is arguing Big Labor's legal positions in court again.
Right to Work supporters recall the Bush Administration's lousy record when it comes to employee free choice and worker freedom. Solicitor General Paul Clement seemed to take pleasure in parroting union lawyer talking points in important legal proceedings like Davenport v. Washington Education Association. Before resigning in May, Clement took another swipe at employee freedom in Locke v. Karass, another Foundation case going to the Supreme Court.
Clement's successor, Acting Solicitor General Gregory Garre, appears to be picking up where Clement left off. On Friday, Garre filed a motion with the Supreme Court to participate in oral arguments in Locke. Worse, Garre wants to cut into time already allocated to Foundation attorneys.
In Locke, Foundation attorneys are representing 20 Maine state employees who contend that the union which "represents" them -- the Maine State Employees Association (MSEA) -- is violating their First Amendment rights by sending part of their forced dues to a giant union slush fund which the affiliated Service Employees International Union (SEIU) can use to finance costly litigation, even though such litigation does not directly impact the state employees' own bargaining unit. SEIU is one of the most radical and politically militant national unions.
On Monday, the Foundation filed its opposition to the federal government's motion, making several important points to challenge both the SG's motion to participate and the motion for divided argument.
The Acting Solicitor General has failed to adequately demonstrate the government's concrete interest in the case. Importantly, no federal statute is at stake. Garre's motion claims the government's interest by vaguely pointing to the Secretary of Labor's responsibility to advise the President on labor policy and carry out Congressional policy and to the National Labor Relations Act, though Garre even contradictorily argues in the motion "that questions arising under the NLRA are distinguishable from this case."
The High Court has the option to simply extend time for oral arguments, but Garre wants to cut into the time of both the Foundation attorneys and MSEA lawyers -- even though the Court's rules permit divided arguments "only in the most extraordinary circumstances." But of the 22 pages of argument in the Solicitor's amicus brief, 17 are devoted to opposing the pro-worker legal position taken by Foundation attorneys.
Moreover, the MSEA cites the Solicitor's arguments 14 times in its own brief. If the Court grants the government's motion, it would "deny the Employees their full opportunity to present their views."
The Bush administration's stance in Locke is inexplicable. With only a few more months before he leaves office, Bush has no electoral reason to try to appease Big Labor (not that Republican appeasement of union bosses works out very well). But as the Acting Solicitor General's motion demonstrates, the Bush administration doesn't have enough significant legal interest either.
Yet, the Solicitor General's office persists in going out of its way to undercut the rights of nonunion employees forced to pay dues as a condition of employment, despite the administration's supposed support of the Right to Work. So once again we have to observe the old saying: With "friends" like these... who needs enemies?
And the Solicitor General's office can't say it doesn't know the harm it is doing. Its demand for oral argument time comes after the Foundation asked it to withdraw its legal brief because, if the Justices took it seriously, it would do serious harm to employees' rights.
Instead, Foundation attorneys may now find themselves arguing not only against Big Labor's lawyers, but also against the Bush Administration.
