Okay, going into wait. Yesterday there was quite a scrum after opinions were handed out; hopefully everyone will be able to keep their shoes on today!
we have Janus, per Alito. Reversed and remanded.
Court holds that union fees violate "the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.
It is 5-4. Sotomayor dissents. Kagan dissents, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.
Court holds that stare decisis does not require retention of the court's decision in Abood, upholding similar union fees.
Says there are "very strong reasons" not to follow Abood. "Fundamental free speech rights are at stake. Abood was poorly reasoned."
Court says Abood "has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions."
In reasonably plain English: This is a case about whether government employees who are represented by a union to which they do not belong can be required to pay a fee to cover the costs of collective bargaining. The plaintiff in this case, an Illinois state employee, argued that having to pay the fees violates the First Amendment. Today the Court agreed, ruling for the employee and against the union.
This is a big decision. Kagan has strong words. Says decision "will have large-scale consequences. Public employee unions will lose a secure source of financial support. State and local governments that thought fair-share provisions furthered their interests will need to find new ways of managing their workforces."
Of practical importance, the Court also holds that employees must affirmatively consent before fees can be withheld from their paychecks —the system must be opt-in, not opt-out.
Kagan says there is no good reason to overrule Abood, observing that more "than 20 States have statutory schemes built on the decision," and "reliance interests do not come any stronger." "And likewise, judicial disruption does not get any greater than what the Court does today."
Lots of people asking whether this decision is limited to public sector unions. Yes, because the First Amendment only constrains the government. There has been some commentary on how this decision might affect labor markets more generally, but by its terms, it applies only to public sector unions.
Alito is still reading from the bench. Not clear yet whether Kagan will read, as she doesn't do so very often. And then we are still expecting a decision in Florida v. Georgia, presumably from Breyer..
Kagan is reading from her dissent right now.
Gosh, so much conflict in the comments. Can we go back to yesterday, when people were just criticizing my spelling? :)
In footnote 6 of the majority opinion, the Court suggests that Unions could be allowed to charge nonmembers for representing them in grievance proceedings.
Submit Event
