Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 555 U.S. 353 - Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Ass'n

Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Ass'n’s Empirical Analysis

555 U.S. 353 · 2009

Citation profile

225
cited by 225 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

81 federal appellate · 29 district · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 225 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Matal v. Tam (2017), Pocatello Education Ass'n v. Heideman (2009)

81 federal appellate · 29 district · 38 state decisions — followed in 10 states

1950200920102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Reynolds v. Sims · Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n · Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 225 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “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.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “). And because the State has no constitutional duty to subsidize speech in the first place, it may restrict that assistance without triggering constitutional scrutiny. As the Chief Justice explained in Ysursa , 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.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a political subdivision, 'created by a state for the better ordering of government, has no privileges or immunities under the federal constitution which it may invoke in opposition to the will of its creator'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.