Hobby Lobby And Harris v. Quinn -- A Pretty Good Day For The First Amendment

Forbes ^ | July 1, 2014 | George Leef

[reaganaut1]

On June 30, the Supreme Court released two much-awaited decisions, both involving arguments over the extent of federal power to coerce individuals. Those of us who believe that the federal government already far exceeds its constitutional (or merely proper) authority should applaud both decisions — but not too enthusiastically.

I say that because both decisions were defensive victories. By narrow majorities, the Court fended off attacks on the lines holding against further erosion of the First Amendment. Be glad about that, but the forces pushing for ever-increasing political control won’t stop just because two of their offensives were repulsed.

I wrote here about Harris v. Quinn shortly after the Court heard oral arguments back in January and wondered whether the Court would find an excuse to turn a blind eye to the nasty skullduggery that was going on. In brief, the case was about the way public unions had importuned their political allies (specifically, two Illinois governors) to help them extract money from people working as home health care assistants by declaring them to be government employees.

If ever there was a perfect illustration of the way labor unions use political clout to obtain members and money that they could not get through voluntary means, this case is it. The plaintiffs in Harris just wanted to be left alone to handle life’s travails. They did not want any of their money seized for dues, much less by a union whose political objectives some of them vigorously opposed.