Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 44-2003 (2026)

Freedom of choice guaranteed, discrimination prohibited. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Freedom of choice guaranteed, discrimination prohibited. 

No person shall be required, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, (1) to resign or refrain from voluntary membership in, voluntary affiliation with, or voluntary financial support of a labor organization, or, (2) to become or remain a member of a labor organization, or, (3) to pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind or amount to a labor organization, or, (4) to pay to any charity or other third party, in lieu of such payments, any amount equivalent to or a pro-rata portion of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges regularly required of members of a labor organization, or, (5) to be recommended, approved, referred, or cleared by or through a labor organization.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2014–2020 · leading case: Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 370 v. Wasden, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1209 (D. Idaho 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 370 v. Wasden, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1209 (D. Idaho 2016). · cites it 50× “MotivePower rejected Local 370’s proposal on the grounds that the proposed agreement violated Idaho’s right to work law, Idaho Code § 44-2003 (3). The aforementioned provision of Idaho’s right to work law prohibits any person from being “required, as a condition of employment or…”
James M. Sweeney v. Michael R. Pence, 767 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2014). “§ 34-6-22 (1947); Idaho Code Ann. § 44-2003 (3) (1985); 22 Guam Code Ann.”
Idaho Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, AFL-CIO v. Inland Pac. Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc., 801 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2015). “, alongside § 44-2003(2), a provision that bans precisely the types of agreements covered by § 14(b). Consequently, ABC contends, the Act is blessed by § 14(b) and freed from preemption.”
Patrick Morrisey, Attorney Gen. v. WV AFL-CIO (W. Va. 2020). “§ 34-6-23 (2017; enacted 1947) (voiding, as contrary to public policy, any contractual provision between an employer and a labor organization that requires, as a condition of employment, any employee to be or remain a member or an affiliate of a labor organization or to pay any…”
Patrick Morrisey, Attorney Gen. v. WV AFL-CIO (W. Va. 2020). “§ 34-6-23 (2017; enacted 1947) (voiding, as contrary to public policy, any contractual provision between an employer and a labor organization that requires, as a condition of employment, any employee to be or remain a member or an affiliate of a labor organization or to pay any…”
— Idaho Code § 44-2003(3) — 1 case
Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 370 v. Wasden, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1209 (D. Idaho 2016). “MotivePower rejected Local 370’s proposal on the grounds that the proposed agreement violated Idaho’s right to work law, Idaho Code § 44-2003 (3). The aforementioned provision of Idaho’s right to work law prohibits any person from being “required, as a condition of employment or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.