The U.S. Supreme Court case, Ben Ysursa, Idaho Secretary of State, et al. v. Pocatello Education Association et al., 2008 revolved around the constitutionality of an Idaho law that prohibited local government entities from making payroll deductions for political activities. The Pocatello Education Association and other unions challenged this law on First Amendment grounds arguing it infringed upon their freedom of speech rights by limiting their ability to fundraise for political causes through paycheck deductions. However, the Supreme Court upheld the law in a unanimous decision stating that while public employees have a right to engage in collective bargaining and express views on political issues, they do not have a constitutional right to use government resources (like payroll systems) for these purposes.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Ben Ysursa, Idaho Secretary of State, et al. v. Pocatello Education Association et al., Justice David Souter argued that Idaho's ban on payroll deductions for political activities violated the First Amendment rights of unions and their members. He contended that while states have a right to avoid becoming entangled in partisan politics, this should not extend to suppressing union speech or limiting how unions finance their political expression. Souter also disagreed with the majority's view that there was no discrimination against union speech because all groups were equally affected by the ban; he pointed out that only public sector labor organizations used payroll deductions as a primary means of funding political activities, so they were disproportionately impacted by this law.