Roxanna Castro earns her living providing in-home care to disabled and seriously ill individuals. In January 2026, Service Employees International Union, Local 2015, took $45 in union dues from her paycheck, which totals just $117.84 — more than 38 percent of everything she earned in that pay period — and then took another $45 from her $297.87 paycheck the following month.
The union made these deductions even though Castro had already asked it to end her membership and cease collecting dues.
When she contacted SEIU 2015, the union dismissed her concerns and continued the deductions. For an in-home caregiver earning only a few hundred dollars at a time, $45 was not an insignificant amount; it was money she could ill afford to lose.
The Freedom Foundation ultimately stepped in to help Castro stop the deductions and recover the money SEIU 2015 had continued taking from her wages.
Because of the Freedom Foundation’s success, New York state’s public sector unions and the pro-union state government decided to retaliate.
On Sept. 9, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed Assembly Bill A10835A into law. It took effect immediately, adding Section 216 to the New York Civil Service Law.
Supporters presented the measure as merely a ban on impersonating unions or union officials, and if that’s all the law did, it wouldn’t be controversial.
But A10835A goes further. It prohibits communications that use fraud, misrepresentation, a “material omission” or “other deception” while purporting to be authorized by a union.
Predictably, the bill never defines important terms like “material omission” or “harm.”
Enforcement of the new law is left to New York Attorney General Leticia James, who is granted broad authority to investigate even potential future violations of the law. A10835A authorizes the Attorney General to seek judicial junctions against speech before it is published, while allowing her to issue subpoenas and investigate those she believes may violate the law.
She can seek injunctions even against those situated outside the state of New York, and violations of the law are subject to civil penalties of $1,000 per incident.
In practice, the meaning of terms like “material omission” and “harm” will be determined, at least initially, by James, who is well-known for her cozy relationship with government unions.
In fact, James has been endorsed by nearly every major union in the state including, AFSCME Council 37, NYSUT, CSEA New York, and the New York State AFL-CIO.
Although the Freedom Foundation has developed and operates a sophisticated education campaign to inform unionized public employees of their right to decline or cancel their union membership, it does not claim to speak for any union.
Freedom Foundation materials are clearly identified and tell public employees about their First Amendment rights as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME, including the rule that government employers may not take union payments from a nonconsenting employee.
Predictably, union officials oppose the Freedom Foundation’s educational outreach because they want their members to remain ignorant of their civil liberties. Unfortunately, their desperation to keep dues payments flowing has resulted in a scheme to silence the voices of their opponents through lawfare.
The combination of a vague law applied by union-aligned state officials with crippling penalties for violations makes the Freedom Foundation’s continued education efforts in New York prohibitively risky — and that’s the whole point.
New York Already Prohibited Real Impersonation
This law purports to solve a problem that never existed, while ignoring the actual law against fraudulent impersonation which already exists in the state.
New York Penal Law Section 190.25 already makes it a class A misdemeanor to pretend to represent a person or organization and then act in that assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud someone.
Ordinary fraud rules also remain available when a speaker makes a provably false statement and causes a legally recognized injury.
AB A10835A does nothing but create a special tool for one powerful special interest group to wield against its adversaries. The bill creates no matching remedy for misleading union statements about employee rights or outside advocacy groups. There is no special law saying that unions cannot make misleading statements about employee rights.
The law is a one-way, state-enforced remedy intended solely to target organizations like the Freedom Foundation.
Undefined Definitions
Fraud and false statements can be tested against facts. They tend to be somewhat objective. An omission is different and almost completely subjective.
Imagine the Freedom Foundation telling an employee he or she has a constitutional right not to fund a union and explaining how to stop deductions. Must the same letter also state the union’s marketing arguments in favor of membership? Must it list every benefit the union claims to provide and every argument the union would prefer the employee to hear?
If the letter doesn’t do those things, could the union use this new law to allege violations by omission, call the message deceptive and ask the attorney general to act?
We’re about to find out.
The law does not require harm only to the employee who receives the message. It also recognizes harm to the employee organization itself, without defining what that means. The sponsor’s memorandum says outside communications can disrupt a union’s operations and undermine the relationship between the union and its members.
Which leads to an obvious question: Is a loss of members or dues the kind of organizational harm the law was written to prevent? The text doesn’t say.
An employee’s lawful decision to resign would reduce union revenue. Is the Freedom Foundation liable for “harming” the union if it previously communicated with the employee about their rights?
As written, Letitia James and liberal New York judges will get to decide.
More Taxpayer Dollars
Under the law enacted, a union can bring a complaint while a taxpayer-funded office investigates, issues subpoenas and litigates. The attorney general may seek an injunction and preliminary relief.
The bill allows unions to leverage government resources and personnel to attack the Freedom Foundation, all funded with taxpayer dollars. It also means unions no longer must fund the plaintiff’s side of the case themselves; they save money on legal fees because the state will be the one handling the investigation and litigation.
The phrase “per incident” is also undefined. If the state treats each recipient or copy of an email or informational mailer as a separate “incident,” a 5,000-piece mailing could generate $5 million in fines.
The Target is Clearly Freedom Foundation
AB A10835A goes out of its way to target persons who disseminate prohibited communications in New York “whether or not such person is physically present within the state.” The Freedom Foundation is not based in New York but has nonetheless helped thousands of public employees in the state to cancel unwanted union memberships.
Interestingly, the governor’s own announcement said the law would prevent “outside groups” from collecting “personal and protected information,” but the statute does not address data collection at all.
The governor signed AB A10835A at her annual Labor Appreciation Reception. Her press release thanked labor partners and featured praise from the heads of the New York State AFL-CIO, NYSUT, CSEA and AFSCME District Council 37.
NYSUT’s president referred to “anti-labor groups,” while the DC 37 executive director referred to “billionaire-backed union busters.”
CSEA had already named the Freedom Foundation in a 2024 union article and accused it, without evidence, of trying to “scam” employees into leaving.
In July, the New York State AFL-CIO endorsed both Hochul and James. The federation said it would educate, engage and mobilize 2.5 million union members, retirees and family members for its endorsed candidates.
Its endorsement list also included Assemblymember Judy Griffin, the bill’s sponsor.
Two months later, Hochul signed a union-specific law that places discretionary enforcement in James’s office while AFL-CIO affiliates stood beside her and praised the result.
The unions and the governor have a close, open working relationship. That relationship is what led to this vague law being passed.
The government should not let a union turn disagreement with the Freedom Foundation into a state-backed investigation. Public employees have a right to hear both sides before deciding whether union membership is worth their money.
AB A10835A makes it more expensive and more dangerous to provide the side New York’s union establishment does not want employees to hear.
