Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Joseph Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 20-1668 · judgment December 9, 2020
Certiorari denied · November 1, 2021
Pre-decision estimate: 1% cert probability
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
- In Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984), this Court held that the First Amendment allows States to compel public employees to accept a union as their exclusive bargaining representative, even when the individual employee strongly opposes the union, its policies, and its bargaining tactics. In Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), this Court did not overrule the holding of Knight, but it questioned the soundness of that ruling by observing that an exclusive-representation regime “substantially restricts the rights of individual employees” and constitutes a “significant impingement on associational freedoms that would not be tolerated in other contexts.” Janus, 138 S. Ct. at 2460. Petitioner Joseph Ocol was expelled from membership in the Chicago Teachers Union when he refused to participate in an illegal one-day strike on April 1, 2016. The union and its members have also subjected Mr. Ocol to repeated acts of bullying and persecution for his decision to report to work during the CTU’s illegal strike. Yet the state of Illinois compels Mr. Ocol to accept this entity as his exclusive representative, even though this union will not even allow Mr. Ocol into membership. The question presented is: Should the Court overrule Knight and hold that the First Amendment prohibits States from forcing dissident public employees to accept a hostile union as their exclusive bargaining representative? 2. Does 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provide a “good-faith defense” to private entities who violate another’s constitutional rights before the courts have clearly established the illegality of their conduct and, if so, does this “goodfaith defense” allow a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 defendant who takes another person’s money or property in violation of the Constitution — but in reliance on a statute or court ruling that purported to authorize its conduct and is only later declared unconstitutional — to keep that money or property when the owner sues for its return?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Jonathan F. Mitchell
Mitchell Law PLLC
For respondent
Jane Elinor Notz
Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Proceedings
- Nov 01 2021Petition DENIED.
- Oct 13 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/29/2021.
- Sep 27 2021Brief of respondents Kwame Raoul, et al. in opposition filed.
- Aug 27 2021Response Requested. (Due September 27, 2021)
- Jul 28 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
- Jul 09 2021Brief of respondents Chicago Teachers Union, et al. in opposition filed.
- May 26 2021Waiver of right of respondent Kwame Raoul, Lara Shayne, Steven Grossman, Chad D. Hays, Michelle Ishmael, Gilbert F. O'Brien, Jr. to respond filed.
- May 25 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 14, 2021.
- May 24 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 14, 2021 to July 14, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- May 10 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 14, 2021)