Why Janus Is Indefensible on Neutral Principles

12 Pages Posted:  

William Foster

Student - Walter Payton College Preparatory High School

Date Written: August 2, 2018

Abstract

In Janus v. AFSCME, the Supreme Court ruled that government employees may not be forced to pay anything to a union against their will. Such compulsion, the Court said, violates First Amendment free speech rights. This decision, however, lacks a firm basis in the law. As a purported exercise of neutral judgement power, the Court's reasoning makes little sense. It hyper-scrutinizes one bit of precedent while uncritically accepting others, with no satisfying explanation for this disparity. And its analysis of original meaning is cursory and evades the key issues. Ultimately, the Janus decision cannot be justified on neutral principles: neither original meaning nor precedent can adequately explain it.

Keywords: Originalism

Suggested Citation

Foster, William, Why Janus Is Indefensible on Neutral Principles (August 2, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3225542

William Foster (Contact Author)

Student - Walter Payton College Preparatory High School ( email )

1034 N Wells St
Chicago, IL 60610
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
19
Abstract Views
68
PlumX