161564P.pdf   08/30/2019  Arnold Fleck  v.  Joe Wetch
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1564
   U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Constitutional law. For the court's earlier opinion affirming 
   the district court's dismissal of this challenge to North Dakota's 
   integrated bar's use of a member's compulsory fees to support political 
   activities he or she opposes, see Fleck v. Wetch, 868 F>3d 562 (8th Cir. 
   2017). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter for 
   reconsideration in light of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, 
   and Municipal Employees, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018). Fleck .v Wetch, 139 S. 
   Ct. 590 (2018). Held: Fleck has forfeited his claim that mandatory state 
   bar association membership violates the First Amendment by compelling him 
   to pay dues and to associate with an organization that engages in 
   political or ideological activities, and the court declines to take up the 
   issue for the first time on remand; the bar association's revised annual 
   fee statement and procedures do not force members to pay non-chargeable 
   dues over their objection and give bar members adequate notice of their 
   right to take a Keller deduction. 
  
161564P.pdf   08/17/2017  Arnold Fleck  v.  Joe Wetch
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1564
   U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Constitutional law. In an action by a member of the State Bar 
   Association of North Dakota alleging the Association's opt-out procedure 
   violates his right to affirmatively consent before subsidizing non-germane 
   expenditures, the district court did not err finding the Association had 
   implemented constitutionally adequate procedures to protect the First 
   Amendment rights of North Dakota attorneys who oppose a non-germane 
   expenditure; in response to this suit, the Association adopted revised 
   policies and the revised license fee statement adequately disclosed a 
   member's option not to fund non-germane expenditures and gives the 
   attorney the ability to make a deduction and submit a lower payment; if 
   the attorney does not choose the Kelller v. State Bar of California, 496 
   U.S. 1 (1990) deduction, the attorney opts in to subsidizing the 
   non-germane expenses by the affirmative act of writing a check for the 
   greater amount, and the revised procedures comply with Keller and Chicago 
   Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986).