Federal Judiciary

Workers oppose divided argument in union dispute

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

Lawyers for a group of non-union public employees challenging the spending of their security fees on litigation outside their bargaining unit have asked the Court to deny the Solicitor General’s request for divided argument in Locke v. Karass (07-610).

Last week, the Solicitor General, which filed an amicus brief in support of neither party, requested that the Court allot 10 minutes of argument time to the federal government, and divide the remaining time between the two parties. It noted that both the employees and the union opposed the motion.

The opposition, filed Monday by attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, contends that 17 of the 22 pages in the government’s brief oppose the employees’ position, and the the respondent union’s brief cites it 14 times in support of its argument.  Jeremiah Collins, a lawyer for the respondent, said the union did not plan to file an opposition.

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on July 30, 2008 (boomark / email).