who have previously objected but have subsequently failed to renew their objection has not yet been addressed by the Supreme Court or the Fourth Circuit. II. Whether the IAM’s Annual Renewal Policy is Arbitrary, Discriminatory, or in Bad Faith A handful of courts has addressed the validity of various aspects of annual renewal policies, and reached divergent outcomes using different analytical frameworks. Applying rigorous First Amendment scrutiny rather than the less demanding duty of fair representation standard, the Second Circuit, Fifth Circuit, and Eastern District of Virginia have held that such renewal policies are unconstitutional, while the Sixth Circuit has, without significant analysis, upheld a similar policy. Compare Seidemann v. Bowen, 499 F.3d 119, 124-26 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>), Shea v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace
holding that plaintiffs necessarily demonstrated irreparable harm because they showed a substantial likelihood that their first amendment rights had been infringed holding that when determining the proper amount for a burdened property that was purchased in a package only two methods suggest themselves as arguably appropriate 1 a determination of the fair market value of the  property burdened by the right of first refusal or 2 a determination of the portion of the  purchase price which based on the percentage of the fair market value of the entire package represented by the  property burdened by the right of first refusal should be allocated to the  property burdened by the right of first refusal holding that appellants fourteenth amendment due process claim did not require reversal where they failed to show that they were prejudiced holding that procedures for dealing with nonmember objections failed to minimize the risk that their first amendment rights would be burdened because they were not narrowly drawn recognizing that plaintiffs had standing to allege infringements of their first amendment rights where the record established that they had been threatened with enforcement of the statute and that such enforcement would cause them injury