No.22-95 In THE Supreme Court of the United States

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 2,538 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on August 31, 2022,

I, Andrew Cockle, of lawful age, being duly sworn, upon my oath state that I did, on the 31st day of August, 2022, send out from Omaha, NE 3 package(s) containing 3 copies of the BRIEF OF GOLDWATER INSTITUTE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER in the above entitled case.

All parties required to be served have been served by Priority Mail.

Packages were plainly addressed to the following:

I am duly authorized under the laws of the State of Nebraska to administer oaths.

Box 7857 Madison, WI 53704-7857 kawskicp@doj.state.wi.us Party name: Chief Justice Annette Ziegler, Justices Patience Roggensack, Ann Walsh Bradley, et al.

For all of the reasons that Janus identified, regardless whether they could fairly be categorized in some way as “germane” to regulation of the legal profession, when mandatory bars engage in these activities, they pose a threat to vital First Amendment freedoms by compelling attorneys to subsidize private speech with which they may ardently disagree.

This raises the very real prospect that members of the legal profession — especially those who advocate for religious liberty — will be compelled to subsidize briefs that contend against not only their own deeply held views, but also against their litigation positions and the interests of their clients.

This new trend of wielding state bar associations’ core professional-regulation powers for transparently political and ideological ends has not stopped at the suppression of conservative and religious viewpoints; it also has carried over into the fraught exercise of dictating the race and gender composition of CLE panels.

The court concluded that “[q]uotas based on characteristics like the ones in this policy are antithetical to basic American principles of nondiscrimination,” and that “[i]t is essential that [t]he Florida Bar withhold its approval from continuing legal education programs that are tainted by such discrimination.” Id. (citing Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 334 (2003); Regents of Univ.

Surely such a result is incompatible with Thomas Jefferson’s and this Court’s view that “‘to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.’” Keller, 496 U.S. at 10 (quoting I. Brant, James Madison: The Nationalist 354 (1948)).

Keller, the sole basis of the lower court’s decision on the merits, must be rejected as binding precedent, as it is no longer tenable in light of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018).

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opin- ion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).4 Thomas Jefferson, as this Court recognized in its landmark Janus decision, put the un- derlying principle in these words: [T]o compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhor[s] is sinful and tyranni- cal.

Forc- ing free and independent individuals to endorse 4 In applying that principle to the case before it, the Court held: “We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power, and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.” 319 U.S. at 642. ideas they find objectionable is always demean- ing, and for this reason, one of our land-mark free speech cases said that a law commanding “involuntary affirmation” of objected-to beliefs would require “even more immediate and ur- gent grounds” than a law demanding silence.

It pro- vided a hypothetical to drive its point home: Suppose, for example, that [a State] required all residents to sign a document expressing support for a particular set of positions on con- troversial public issues—say, the platform of one of the major political parties.

Briefs and Records Supreme Court of the United States United States Courts of Appeals

7 Nonetheless, bar associations continue to teach and advocate for an interpretation of the Establishment Clause that is “ahistorical, atextual[,]” and a threat to religious liberty.

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the BRIEF OF GOLDWATER INSTITUTE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER in the above entitled case complies with the typeface requirement of Supreme Court Rule 33.1(b), being prepared in New Century Schoolbook 12 point for the text and 10 point for the footnotes, and this brief contains 2957 words, excluding the parts that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d), as needed.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of August, 2022.

I am duly authorized under the laws of the State of Nebraska to administer oaths.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 31, 2022, three (3) copies of the AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

OF PETITIONERin the above-captioned case were served, as required by U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.5(c), on the following:

17 W. Main Street P.O.

District of Columbia My commission expires June 14, 2027. lett, &getnod307ag, et See be ‘25 De Stu 19% te a i E & LA qXq e oO ¢ % 3 ad wt a : “40Oy aS5 “sy,“ISy we.

iste

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 31, 2022, three (8) copies of the BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER in the above-captioned case were served, as required by U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.5(c), on the following:

17 West Main Street, P.O.

SxS" GS 43%, gus ob it 3%., wey ASE Feta,

% UowN ae Dose BONS ne “ Mera COLIN Casey|Hocan

District of Columbia aa My commission expires June 14, 2027.

Supreme Court of the United States

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 2,971 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on August 31, 2022.

Briefs and Records Supreme Court of the United States United States Courts of Appeals

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33. l(h), I certify that the Brief of Amicus Curiae First Liberty Institute in Support of Petitioner contains 2,398 words, excluding the parts of the Brief that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.l(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Sworn to and subscribed before me by said Affiant on the date designated below.

Notary Public, State of Ohio My Commission Expires F";.1bruary 14, 2023

Kel- ler thus adopted wholesale the “germaneness’”test of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), which governed “whether, consistent with the First Amendment, agency-shop dues of nonunion pub- lic employees could be used to support political and ideological causes of the union.” Keller, 496 U.S. at 9.

Pursuant to Su- preme Court Rule 37.6, no counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person or entity other than ami- cus curiae made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission.

The Court overturns a constitutional decision if it is badly reasoned and wrongly decided, conflicts with other precedents, has proven unworkable, and is not supported by valid reliance interests.

Specifically, Abood failed to consider the employees’ First Amendment rights with respect to compulsory “agency fees,” incorrectly relying on the Court’s deci- sions in Ratlway Employees v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225 (1956), and Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740 (1961), which upheld private-sector “agency fee” schemes.

This confusion provides a fertile playgroundfor Lit- igants in the lower federal and state courts in an area where uniformity in decision making—and therefore in the protection of First Amendmentrights of speech and association—is vital to the sound administration of justice.

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF PELICAN INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER in the above entitled case complies with the typeface requirement of Supreme Court Rule 33.1(b), being prepared in New Century Schoolbook 12 point for the text and 10 point for the footnotes, and this brief contains 3172 words, excluding the parts that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d), as needed.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of August, 2022.

I am duly authorized under the laws of the State of Nebraska to administer oaths.

The Goldwater Institute (“GI”) is a non-partisan public policy and research foundation dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, eco- nomic freedom, and individual responsibility.

non-germane speech—even political or ideological speech—so long as the bar employed adequate proce- dures to refund the payments to dissenting members, thereby protecting them against the compulsory subsi- dization of speech with which they disagree.

Lathrop was a plurality decision that addressed “only ... [the] question of com- pelled financial support of group activities, not ... in- voluntary membership in any other aspect,” 367 U.S. at 828 (emphasis added).

In direct conflict with those holdings, the Sixth Circuit held in Taylor v. Buchanan that Keller and Lathrop foreclosed both an attorney’s association chal- lenge and a compulsory dues challenge.

But Judge Thapar, concurring in the judgment, made clear that this was incorrect, and explained that if an integrated bar engaged in non-germane activity not related to regulating the legal profession, a free as- sociation claim is still available.

I, Andrew Cockle, of lawful age, being duly sworn, upon my oath state that I did, on the 31st day of August, 2022, send out from Omaha, NE 4 package(s) containing 3 copies of the AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF PELICAN INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER in the above entitled case.

Packages were plainly addressed to the following:

I am duly authorized under the laws of the State of Nebraska to administer oaths.

Counsel for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices: Clayton P. Kawski Sean Michael Murphy

Counsel for Wisconsin Bar: Roberta F. Howell Andrew C. Gresik FOLEY & LARDNER LLP Suite 5000 150 E. Gilman Street P.O.