Filed September 26, 2014
Because the principle of exclusive representation fails to implicate First Amendment rights, the state “need not demonstrate any special justification” for its extension of collective bargaining rights to family child care providers through the Act. Univ. of Pennsylvania v. E.E.O.C., 493 U.S. 182, 201 (1990) (upholding EEOC subpoena process without special justification, where university failed to demonstrate any burden on First Amendment rights in context of compelled disclosure of peer review materials); see also Knight, 465 U.S. at 291 (where exclusive representation posed no First Amendment problems, rejecting alternative Case 1:14-cv-11866-LTS Document 24 Filed 09/26/14 Page 15 of 18 16 equal-protection theory on the ground that state’s interest in dealing with one representative during employment-related discussions satisfied rational-basis test). The legislation here clearly has a rational basis, as it seeks to improve the quality of child care services for low-income and at-risk families by creating cooperative relationships with those whom the state reimburses for providing such services.
Filed November 7, 2014
Although there is substantial First Amendment precedent, few cases involved the Petition Clause and certainly none involved the right to petition in the face of the government’s countervailing discretion in the selection of its advisors. The government relied on Minnesota v. Knight, 465 U.S. at 283, a right to petition case, which held that “[t]he Constitution does not grant to members of the public generally a right to be heard by public bodies making decisions of policy.” This Court agreed that Knight was controlling, but the Court of Appeals did not.
Filed November 18, 2016
The Due Process Clause does not constrain everyday policymaking action by the Government when it does not deprive any individual of a property or liberty interest. See Minn. State Bd. for Cmty. Colls. v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 283–84 (1984) (“The Constitution does not grant to members of the public generally a right to be heard by public bodies making decisions of policy.”).
Filed May 26, 2010
They were simply unsuccessful. Knight, 465 U.S. at 285-286; We the People Foundation, 485 F.3d at 143. Furthermore, Plaintiffs are free to petition Congress for a change of the law, for repeal of the Murray Amendment in the 2011 appropriations bill, and for no further statutory (or administrative) exceptions to the Charter Rule.