On its face, Act 10 is neutral—it does not tie public employees’ use of the state’s payroll system to speech on any particular viewpoint. See Velazquez, 531 U.S. at 546-48 (speech subsidy viewpoint discriminatory when conditioned on recipient advancing particular viewpoint). Nevertheless, the Unions argue that Act 10 facially discriminates on the basis of viewpoint because general employee unions and public safety unions will necessarily espouse different viewpoints. Maybe they do. But this argument merely recycles the Unions’ earlier assertion that speaker-based discrimination in the subsidy context requires heightened scrutiny. It does not.
Latest Reader Blogs
Son of Hamas Leader Exposes Group’s Goal of Global Muslim Domination, While Imam Obama Thanks Islam for building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracyNeiman's Blog - July 29, 2014
"Netanyahu’s dilemma: Back Obama’s save Hamas policy, or fight for its downfall with Egypt and Saudis"TheLastBestHope - July 27, 2014