According to today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision Harris v. Quinn, not much. Mandatory state bars, including Michigan’s, were watching Harris closely (see the amicus brief submitted by 21 past presidents of the District of Columbia Bar), worried that if, as some amici urged, the court repudiated the seminal Michigan public union case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the decision would undermine the reasoning of Keller v. State Bar of California, the case defining what mandatory state bars are allowed to do, because Keller referred to Abood by analogy. Instead, the decision today expressly offers this reassurance to mandatory state…
Source link
