When veteran advocate David Frederick steps to the lectern in the second major labor case of the U.S. Supreme Court term, the legal issue will be familiar and so will one particular justice.

Frederick, name partner in Washington's Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, will argue for the first time in front of his former law firm colleague, Justice Neil Gorsuch. The high court's freshman justice was in private practice at the firm from 1995 to 2005.

In Janus v. AFSCME, Frederick, the union's counsel, gets a second chance to persuade the justices that requiring nonunion members to pay “fair share” fees to public employee unions representing them in collective bargaining does not violate the First Amendment. The argument is set for Feb. 26.

The justices faced the same legal question in 2016 but deadlocked 4-4 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. In that case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, Frederick also represented the union. His opponent was Jones Day appellate partner Michael Carvin.

Carvin is also making a return trip on this issue but as amicus counsel to a group of California public school teachers who support the nonunion challenger. And the Jones Day connection doesn't end there. Carvin's former law partner, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, may argue in Janus, also supporting the nonunion challenger's position.

Although not quite akin to six degrees of Kevin Bacon, the lawyerly connections do reflect the small world of Supreme Court advocacy.

David Frederick

In Janus, Frederick is expected to share argument time with Illinois Solicitor General David Franklin, who represents Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Michael Hoffman, acting director of the Illinois Department of Central Management. Frederick and Franklin have asked the justices to give each 15 minutes.

Mark Janus is represented by William Messenger of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Francisco has asked the high court to give the Solicitor's Office 10 minutes of Messenger's 30-minute argument time.

Messenger has argued two high court cases, including Harris v. Quinn in 2014. In Harris, Justice Samuel Alito Jr., writing for a 5-4 majority, detailed his objections to the 40-year-old high court precedent at the center of the fair share fee battle: Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the 1977 case that upheld the constitutionality of fair-share fees.

The U.S. Department of Justice, under administrations of both political parties, had defended Abood in the last 40 years—until last December. That's when the Justice Department, under U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, took the opposite position in Janus.

During arguments in the 2016 challenge, the union appeared headed for defeat at the hands of the court's five conservative justices. This year, Gorsuch may hold the key to the outcome. He did not face a similar issue when he sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The high court has not acted yet on both sides' requests for divided argument, but it seems likely to approve both based on past practice.

If Francisco does argue in Janus, it will be his third argument since becoming solicitor general. He argued for the government in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, involving a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, and Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, a challenge to Ohio's process for updating its voter registration rolls.

There are nearly 11 million union-represented employees in 22 states that don't have laws prohibiting agency fees. Roughly half of those employees—7.8 million—are in the public sector, according to the U.S. Labor Department's bureau of labor statistics.

On Oct. 2, the justices heard the other major labor challenge of the term: a trio of cases in which employers seek to enforce mandatory arbitration clauses prohibiting class and collective actions in employment contracts.

Read more:

US Justice Department Takes Alito's Side in New Stance Against Union Fees

Sotomayor Confronts DOJ's Francisco About Switched-Up Position in Ohio Voter Case

Federal Appeals Judge: Don't End Nationwide Injunctions. (But Here's a Plan for Them.)

Kagan Questions US Solicitor's Absence in Labor Case

The Supreme Court's Next Big Union Fight: 6 Key Questions