Abstract
Public-sector unions—such as those for firefighters and public school teachers who work for state governments—have been authorized by law in several states to compel the payment of service fees from non-members, a practice upheld by a long-standing precedent of the Supreme Court. Recent challenges argue that forced payments are the equivalent of coerced speech, forcing state employees to fund political positions they oppose, in violation of the First Amendment. The Court’s ruling limiting the power of unions will lead to important changes in labor relations as well as in the constitutional law of free speech.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Knox v. SEIU, 567 U.S. 310 (2012).
- 2.
Ibid.
- 3.
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education , 431 U.S. 209 (1977).
- 4.
Janus decision, page 3.
- 5.
Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), Justice Kagan dissent, page 15.
- 6.
Lyle Denniston, “Opinion Analysis: A Ruling Inviting a Plea To Overrule” www.SCOTUSblog.com, 30 June 2014.
- 7.
John Eastman , “Harris v. Quinn Symposium: Abood and the Walking Dead” www.SCOTUSblog.com, 30 June 2014.
- 8.
Brianne J. Gorod, “Sam Alito : The Court’s Most Consistent Conservative,” 126 The Yale Law Journal 362–373 (2017).
- 9.
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association 578 U.S. ___ (2016).
- 10.
Note: granting certiorari (“SER-shee-o-RARE-ree”) is the term for the Court accepting a case to be heard. The Justices only take the appeals they choose to and are under little obligation to hear any specific case appealed from a lower court. They follow what is called the Rule of Four: if four of the nine Justices choose to hear a case, it is granted certiorari.
- 11.
Janus decision, page 3.
- 12.
Ibid., page 1.
- 13.
Ibid., page 3.
- 14.
Megan McArdle, “Why You Should Care About the Supreme Court’s Janus Decision,” The Washington Post, 27 June 2018.
- 15.
In Mark Janus’s situation, the union considered the chargeable (nonpolitical) expenses to be 78% of the full union dues for all expenses.
- 16.
Janus Kagan dissent, page 27.
- 17.
Ibid., page 21.
- 18.
Citizens United v. F.E.C. 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
- 19.
Janus Kagan dissent, page 26.
- 20.
Adam Liptak , “How the Supreme Court Weaponized the First Amendment ,” The New York Times, 30 June 2018.
- 21.
Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011).
- 22.
Janus Kagan dissent, page 28.
- 23.
National Institute of Family & Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, 585 U.S. ___ (2018).
- 24.
NIFLA Breyer dissent, page 3.
- 25.
Haley Sweetland Edwards, “How the First Amendment Became a Tool for Deregulation,” Time Magazine, 19 July 2018.
- 26.
Janus decision, page 47.
- 27.
Janus Kagan dissent, page 24.
- 28.
Noam Scheiber, “Labor Unions Will Be Smaller After Supreme Court Decision, but Maybe Not Weaker,” The New York Times, 27 June 2018; Dana Goldstein and Erica L. Green, “What the Supreme Court’s Janus Decision Means for Teacher Unions,” The New York Times, 27 June 2018.
- 29.
Goldstein and Green.
- 30.
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, argument transcript at 35.
- 31.
Fleck v. Wetch, 868 F.3d 652 (8th Circuit).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Curry, B. (2019). Janus v. AFSCME on Mandatory Fees to Public Sector Unions. In: Klein, D., Marietta, M. (eds) SCOTUS 2018. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11255-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11255-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11254-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11255-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)