CaseBierman v. Dayton
The state of Minnesota compels individuals who are not public employees, namely individual Medicaid providers, to accept an exclusive representative for speaking with the state over certain public policies.
The questions presented are:
1. Can the government designate an exclusive representative to speak for individuals for any rational basis, or is this mandatory expressive association permissible only if it satisfies heightened First Amendment scrutiny?
2. If exclusive representation is subject to First Amendment scrutiny, is it constitutional for the government to compel individuals who are not government employees to accept an organization as their exclusive representative for dealing with the government?