138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018)
Under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, public employees may unionize.1 If a majority of employees in a bargaining unit vote to be represented by a union, that union is designated the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit, including those who do not join.2
Non-members must pay an agency fee amounting to a percentage of full union dues.3 In this case the fee was set at 78.06 percent after the union sent non-members a Hudson notice breaking down expenditures.4
Mark Janus is employed by the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services as a child support specialist.5 The employees in his unit are represented by respondent American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31.6
Janus refused to join the union because he opposes many of its public-policy positions, including those taken in collective bargaining, and stated that if given the choice he would not pay any fees.7
The Governor of Illinois filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the state law authorizing agency fees.8 Janus and two other state employees moved to intervene on the Governor's side.9
The District Court dismissed the Governor's challenge for lack of standing but allowed Janus to file his own complaint.10 The District Court granted respondents' motion to dismiss on the ground that the claim was foreclosed by Abood; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.11
Whether Illinois's extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment?17
The First Amendment prohibits the government from compelling individuals to subsidize speech they do not endorse.18 Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed. erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis does not require its retention given its poor reasoning, unworkability, and erosion by subsequent decisions.19
Yes. The State's extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment.20 Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it.21 Abood is therefore overruled.22
Applying the rule to the established facts, Mark Janus refused to join the Union because he opposes many of its positions, including those taken in collective bargaining, and would not pay any fees if given the choice.23 The agency fee was 78.06% of full union dues after the union sent non-members a Hudson notice.24 The First Amendment protects both the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking or subsidizing speech one finds objectionable.25 Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns, and compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers is no less problematic.26
Illinois's extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment, and States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees.27
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Sotomayor joined Justice Kagan's dissent in full.28 She disagrees with the way this Court has interpreted and applied Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.29 Having seen the troubling development in First Amendment jurisprudence over the years, both in this Court and in lower courts, she agrees fully with Justice Kagan that Sorrell has allowed courts to wield the First Amendment in an aggressive way just as the majority does today.30
Joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, And Sotomayor, Jj.
Justice Kagan dissented.31 She argued that Abood struck a stable balance between public employees' First Amendment rights and government entities' interests in running their workforces.32 Abood respected state interests in stable labor relations through exclusive representation funded by fair-share fees.
The majority subverts stare decisis by ignoring the massive reliance interests of states and unions that have structured thousands of contracts around Abood.33 The decision weaponizes the First Amendment against workaday economic and regulatory policy and prevents the American people from making important choices about workplace governance through their elected officials.