Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight

1984 United States Supreme Court case
Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight
Argued November 1, 1983
Decided February 21, 1984
Full case nameMinnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight et al
Citations465 U.S. 271 (more)
Holding
"Meet and confer" provisions do not violate appellees' constitutional rights.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityO'Connor, joined by Burger, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist
ConcurrenceMarshall
DissentBrennan
DissentStevens, joined by Brennan (all but Part III), Powell (all but Part II)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984), was a collective bargaining rights case brought before the United States Supreme Court. The decision had effects on how the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is interpreted.

The appellants, the Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges (Board) and the Minnesota Community College Faculty Association (MCCFA), had agreed among themselves to establish "meet and confer committees" for discussing any campus policy issues not subject to mandatory bargaining. They had legally done so under a provision of the Minnesota Public Employee Labor Relations Act (PELRA).

A group of 20 Minnesota community college faculty not represented by the MCCFA sued in District Court over the committees, successfully arguing that their First and Fourteenth Amendment speech and associational rights had been violated by their exclusion from their employer's policymaking process.

The MCCFA then counter-sued the faculty, and succeeded in establishing before the Supreme Court that PELRA's "meet and confer" provisions do not violate the Constitution. In her majority opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that "nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues."[1]

References

  1. ^ "Minn. Bd. Commun. for Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984)". supreme.justia.com.

Further reading

Text of Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984) is available from: Justia  Library of Congress 

  • v
  • t
  • e
Public displays
and ceremonies
Statutory religious
exemptions
Public funding
Religion in
public schools
Private religious speech
Internal church affairs
Taxpayer standing
Blue laws
Other
Exclusion of religion
from public benefits
Ministerial exception
Statutory religious exemptions
RFRA
RLUIPA
Unprotected
speech
Incitement
and sedition
Libel and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Vagueness
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Compelled representation
  • Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co (1944)
  • Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight (1984)
Government grants
and subsidies
Government
as speaker
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance
and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Prior restraints
and censorship
Privacy
Taxation and
privileges
Defamation
Broadcast media
Copyrighted materials
Incorporation
Protection from prosecution
and state restrictions
Organizations
Future Conduct
Solicitation
Membership restriction
Primaries and elections


Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

  • v
  • t
  • e