# Alabama Education Ass'n v. State Superintendent of Education > Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · February 5, 2014 · 746 F.3d 1135 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8412836 ## Case - **Full name:** ALABAMA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, an Alabama non-profit corporation, A-Vote, an Alabama political committee, Pam Hill, Jeff Breece, Chassity Smith v. STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, State of Alabama, Chancellor of Postsecondary Education, State of Alabama, Attorney for Lee County, State of Alabama, Defendants-Appellants Alabama Education Association, an Alabama non-profit corporation, A-Vote, an Alabama political committee, Pam Hill, Jeff Breece, Chassity Smith v. Governor of Alabama and President of the State School Board, Director of Finance, State of Alabama, Comptroller, State of Alabama, Defendants-Appellants International Association of Firefighters, An unincorporated labor organization, Firepac, a political action committee, American Federation of Teachers Local 2115 v. Superintendent of Education, in his capacity as the Superintendent of Education of the State of Alabama, State of Alabama, Chancellor of Postsecondary Education, in her capacity as Chancellor of Postsecondary Education of the State of Alabama - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - **Decided:** February 5, 2014 - **Citations:** 746 F.3d 1135 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence - **Judges:** Bolin, Bryan, Cox, Dubina, Himself, Hunt, Main, Moore, Murdock, Shaw, Stuart, Wise - **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8412836 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of either their overbreadth claim or their void for vagueness challenge - explaining that “[cjourts generally turn to an in pari materia analysis to resolve a statutory ambiguity and to ascertain legislative intent” ## Opinion text MURDOCK, Justice (concurring specially). I concur in the main opinion. In his special writing dissenting from our answer to the second certified question before us, the Chief Justice argues that our construction of § 17-17-5, Ala.Code 1975, should be altered based on the rule of statutory construction that, under certain circumstances, disfavors interpretations of statutes that will make them unconstitutional. — So.3d at-. I cannot agree that we should alter our construction of § 17-17-5 on this ground. The statute at issue in Ysursa v. Poca-tello Education Ass’n, 555 U.S. 353 , 129 S.Ct. 1093 , 172 L.Ed.2d 770 (2009), cited by the Chief Justice in note 16, prohibited payroll deductions for “political activities,” which it defined as “ ‘electoral activities, independent expenditures, or expenditures made to any candidate, political party, political action committee or political issues committee or in support of or against any ballot measure.’ ” 555 U.S. at 356 , 129 S.Ct. 1093 (quoting Idaho Code § 44-2602 (l)(e) (emphasis added)). The United States Supreme Court held that this restriction did not infringe upon the First Amendment, free-speech rights of the Po-catello Education Association. See Ysursa, 555 U.S. at 358-59 , 129 S.Ct. 1093 . Moreover, in reaching this holding, the Supreme Court employed the following general rationale that would appear fully applicable to the statute at issue here and the “political activity” with which it is concerned: “While in some contexts the government must accommodate expression, it is not required to assist others in funding the expression of particular ideas, including political ones. ‘[A] legislature’s decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right, and thus is not subject to strict scrutiny.’ Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540, 549 [ 103 S.Ct. 1997 , 76 L.Ed.2d 129 ] (1983).... “... While publicly administered payroll deductions for political purposes can enhance the unions’ exercise of First Amendment rights, Idaho is under no obligation to aid the unions in their political activities. And the State’s decision not to do so is not an abridgment of the unions’ speech; they are free to engage in such speech as they see fit. They simply are barred from enlisting the State in support of that endeavor.” 555 U.S. at 358 , 129 S.Ct. 1093 (citation omitted). *1153 Even if the other circumstances for the application of the rule of construction advanced by the Chief Justice were present here, I see no basis for applying that rule in this case. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8412836. Public record. Not legal advice.