GRANT PROPOSAL RECORD Judicial Education Project ADDRESS: 3220 N Street, Suite 268 Washington, DC 20007 CONTAGT: Mr. NeilCorkery AMOUNT STAFF REQUESTED: RECOMMENDATION: PROJECT TITLE: $200,000 $150,000 To support amicus curiae representation before the Supreme Court BOARD MEMBERS AFFILIATED WITH REQUEST: STAFF: MEET NG DATE: PROPOSAL lD#: Mike Hartmann 212412015 20150015 BACKGROUND: The Judicial Education Project (JEP) in Manassas, Va., requests a $200,000 grant award in firsttime support, for the research, writing, and coordination of amicus curiae, or "friend-of-thecourt," briefs in two important cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The request is initiated by Bradley Prize recipient Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (about which see the pending, separate recommendations by the lmplementation & impact Committee and earlier in these IRA materials), who works closely with JEP president Neil Corkery. JEP is dedicated to strengthening liberty and justice in America through defending the Constitution as envisioned by its Framers - creating a federal government of defined and limited powers, dedicated to the rule of law, and supported by a fair and impartialjudiciary. JEP educates citizens about these constitutional principles, and focuses on issues such as judges' role in our democracy, how they construe the Constitution, and the impact of the judiciary on our society. lts educational efforts are conducted through various outlets, including print, broadcast, and internet media. JEP has itself supported the preparation of amicus briefs in two cases before the Court - the challenge to Obamacare's federally run health-care exchanges in Krng v. Bunwelland to compulsory union dues for non-union, public-school employees in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. Ihe King statutory-interpretation case itself was brought with Bradley support by the Competitive Enterprise lnstitute, and the Friedrichs freedom-of-speech and -association case was broughtwith Bradley support by the Center for lndividual Rights. The legal work on both cases has been done in cooperation with Jones Day attorneys. Obamacare As briefly described in the previous recommendation for the Foundation for Government Accountability in this section of these materials, Krng specifically challenges an lnternal Revenue Service rule allowing tax subsidies to those participating in health-care exchanges established by the federal government and nol the states. The Court will hear oral arguments in the case on March 4. Should the challenge succeed, there would only be subsidies for those in state-established exchanges and not those in the other states that rejected Obamacare and thus with federally run exchanges. Obamacare would largely be gutted. Congress would have to "start over" on health care again, and it likely would draw on conservative ideas that have been discussed for years -- including tax credits to buy insurance, high-risk pools, and allowing insurance to be sold across state lines. Various amiciin Klng include members of Congress, state attorneys general, leading administrative-law academics who previously clerked on the Court for key justices, and at least two other Bradley-supported organizations -- the Pacific Research lnstitute (PRl) and the Galen lnstitute. The briefs have been put together by attorneys with Cooper & Kirk, Ogletree Deakins, Boyden Gray & Associates, and Wiley Rein, with former clerks of Supreme Court justices on most of them. Compulsory union dues ln Friedrichs, the Court will consider whether forcing the plaintiffs -- 10 California public-school teachers and members of the Christian Educators Association lnternational group who work in public schools -- to pay "agency-shop" fees to a union of which they have chosen nof to be a member, as a condition of their employment, violates their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and association. This type of forced-payment, "agency-shop" scheme assumes that collective bargaining is "non-political," but the union's bargaining with local governments is inherently political. And the scheme's methods for non-members to opt out of contributing to the union's tens to hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of political activities, moreover, are burdensome and essentially unworkable. Teachers cannot take advantage of them. The plaintiff teachers are asking the Court to overrule its precedents allowing states to mandate any union fees. Various amiciin Friedrichs likely will include current and former governors, state attorneys general, First including PRl. At this Amendment scholars, and leading Bradley-supported education-reform entities writing, two or three others may be commissioned. - Some of the briefs are being put together by attorneys with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Jones Day. The additional ones may be done by Bancroft & Associates, Boyden Gray & Associates, and Kirkland & Ellis - again, with former clerks of justices on most of them. Budget information: JEP's annual overall expense budget in its fiscal-year 2015 is $2,060,000. Each of the two amicus-brief efforts costs approximately $250,000, for a total of $500,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: At this highest of legal levels, it is often very important to orchestrate high-caliber amicus efforts that showcase respected, high-profile parties who are represented by the very best lawyers with strong ties to the Court. Such is the case here, with King and Friedrichs, even given Bradley's previous philanthropic investments in the actual, underlying legal actions. Therefore, staff recommends a $150,000 grant to JEP for the amicus representation. Judicial Education Project Grant History Project Title Grant Amount Approved Fund -- NONE