1. In Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984), this Court held that the First Amendment allows States to compel public employees to accept a union as their exclusive bargaining representative, even when the individual employee strongly opposes the union, its policies, and its bargaining tactics. In Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), this Court did not overrule the holding of Knight, but it questioned the soundness of that ruling by observing that an exclusive-representation regime "substantially restricts the rights of individual employees" and constitutes a "significant impingement on associational freedoms that would not be tolerated in other contexts." Janus, 138 S. Ct. at 2460. Petitioner Joseph Ocol was expelled from membership in the Chicago Teachers Union when he refused to participate in an illegal one-day strike on April 1, 2016. The union and its members have also subjected Mr. Ocol to repeated acts of bullying and persecution for his decision to report to work during the CTU's illegal strike. Yet the state of Illinois compels Mr. Ocol to accept this entity as his exclusive representative, even though this union will not even allow Mr. Ocol into membership. The question presented is: Should the Court overrule Knight and hold that the First Amendment prohibits States from forcing dissident public employees to accept a hostile union as their exclusive bargaining representative?

2. Does 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provide a "good-faith defense" to private entities who violate another's constitutional rights before the courts have clearly established the illegality of their conduct and, if so, does this "good-faith defense" allow a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 defendant who takes another person's money or property in violation of the Constitution—but in reliance on a statute or court ruling that purported to authorize its conduct and is only later declared unconstitutional—to keep that money or property when the owner sues for its return?

Should the Court overrule Knight and hold that the First Amendment prohibits States from forcing dissident public employees to accept a hostile union as their exclusive bargaining representative?