Friedrichs v. the California Teachers Association

Black, Brown and poor communities across the United States deserve your commitment to "ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans," this includes ensuring equity in education because the constitution does not end at the school house door and you do know Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned, right!
When it comes to choosing between children who need schools that will prepare them for a successful future and help stabilize our country's economy or policies that benefit adults only and special interests, the choice is clear. We must choose Justice and Children every time!
Women in unions earn higher wages than their non-union counterparts. Why is that? Part of the answer is obvious: unions are able to use the power of collective bargaining to fight for higher wages overall. But that's not the entire picture.
A split 4-4 decision means public-sector unions can keep their system of collecting fees from workers.
The case deals with dues for teachers' unions.
The crucial oral argument before the Court this month is the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, as well as several cases that the Court agreed to review later this year. With the president elected in November likely to select as many as four new Supreme Court justices beginning as early as next year, the person we elect as president will be critical. That's why Election Day 2016 will be Judgment Day for the Court and our rights and liberties.
Sometime during the next few months, the US Supreme Court will issue a decision that could profoundly weaken public employee unions across the country.
Monday was an important day for America's shrinking middle class. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case that could impose radical new limits on the rights of public sector workers -- like teachers, nurses, and firefighters -- to join together to win better lives for their families and communities.
Union advocates had hoped the conservative justice would lend them a hand in a big labor case.
The ruling would undo nearly 40 years of precedent in labor relations.