Harris v. Quinn (573 U.S. 616)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 30, 2014 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 573 U.S. 616 · 134 S. Ct. 2618
- Decided
- June 30, 2014
- Term
- October Term 2013
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Alito
- Issue area
- Unions
- Disposition
- Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
- Constitutional ruling
- State/territorial law held unconstitutional
Opinion excerpt
Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether the First Amendment permits a State to compel personal care providers to subsidize speech on matters of public concern by a union that they do not wish to join or support. We hold that it does not, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I A Millions of Americans, due to age, illness, or injury, are unable to live in their own homes without assistance and are unable to afford the expense of in-home care. In order to prevent these individuals from having to enter a nursing home or other facility, the federal Medicaid program funds state-run programs that provide in-home services to individuals whose conditions would otherwise require institutionalization. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c)(1). A State that adopts such a program receives federal funds to compensate persons who attend to the daily needs of individuals needing in-home care. Ibid.; see also 42 CFR §§ 440.180, 441.300-441.310 (2013). Almost every State has established such a program. See Dept. of Health and Human Services, Understanding Medicaid Home and Community Services: A Primer (2010). One of those States is Illinois, which has created the Illinois Department of Human Services Home Services Program, known colloquially as the state "Rehabilitation Program." Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 20, § 2405/3(f) (West 2012); 89…
Excerpt of a 128,258-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.