In today’s news and commentary, the Supreme Court declines to review a taxpayer lawsuit against a teachers union’s paid leave policy, and Democrats in Congress oppose the Labor Department’s proposed joint employer rule.

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in a case challenging a Minnesota school district policy that gives teachers paid leave for union work, leaving in place a divided Eighth Circuit ruling that allowed three taxpaying district residents to sue over the policy. An American Federation of Teachers affiliate asked the Supreme Court to reverse the Eight Circuit, arguing its decision conflicts with other circuits by expanding taxpayer standing to challenge a policy that is revenue-neutral and not tied to any specific expenditure of municipal funds. The school district opposed the union’s bid for review, saying the paid leave policy is unlawful and that it had previously sought to have it removed from the collective bargaining agreement. The union drew amicus support from the AFL-CIO, Minnesota and six other states, and several public school professional associations.

Next, Democrats in the House and Senate urged the Labor Department to withdraw its proposed changes to joint employer regulations, which would revive a previous Trump administration policy requiring a business to exert “actual control” over another company’s employees to be held jointly liable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In a letter to acting Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling, Representatives Bobby Scott and Ilhan Omar argued that the April proposal would leave workers without legal protection by shielding larger companies that rely on subcontractors or farm labor contractors that often do not comply with federal labor law. “The Department does not have authority to undermine congressional intent by defining joint employment under federal labor laws so narrowly,” wrote the Representatives. Senators Ed Markey, Bernie Sanders, Richard Blumenthal, and Patty Murray sent a similar letter to the Department, warning that the rule would “water down DOL enforcement investigations, making it easier for employers to shirk responsibility for wage theft, child labor violations, and worker protections.”