Janus v. AFSCME

Last updated

Janus v. AFSCME
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 26, 2018
Decided June 27, 2018
Full case nameMark Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al.
Docket no. 16-1466
Citations585 U.S. ___ ( more )
138 S. Ct. 2448; 201 L. Ed. 2d 924
Case history
PriorJudgment for defendants, No. 1:15-cv-01235 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2016); affirmed, 851 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 54 (2017).
Holding
No public-sector employees who have refused membership in trade unions may be compelled to pay union dues to said unions because of the benefits that they may receive from their collective bargaining. When applied to public-sector workers, "fair share" agreements violate the First Amendment protections of both free association and free speech.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Gorsuch
DissentSotomayor
DissentKagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Laws applied
US Const. amend. I
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977)

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), abbreviated Janus v. AFSCME, is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on US labor law, concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overruling the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.

Contents

Background

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 authorized trade unions in the private sector to be established to represent employees in collective bargaining for wages and other benefits from employers. Frequently, unions also engage in political activity to support their goals by donating to political campaigns. These activities are paid for through fees and dues collected from its members. Some unions are also able to collect fees from non-members in the same workplace through agency shop or union equity agreements. For unions within the public sector (unions that include members working for state and local governments), which are governed by individual state laws, the use of such agreements had been previously allowed by the Supreme Court in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education , 431 U.S. 209(1977), which determined that as long as such dues collected from non-members were used only for the union's purposes of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment, it did not violate the non-members' First Amendment rights. It was also determined in Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild Inc. , 525 U.S. 33(1998), that private-sector unions have a duty of fair representation to all workers in a bargaining unit under the National Labor Relations Act, and that unions were allowed to negotiate agreements which state that "membership" was required as a condition of continued employment, even though the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 had outlawed agreements requiring formal union membership. About 22 states have unions with these collective agreements in place that apply to their public sector workers. [1]

Challenges to Abood

Since about 2006, with the appointment of Justice Samuel Alito, which gave the Court a conservative advantage, groups opposing agency fees, such as the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, have brought cases challenging Abood. These groups contended that within the public sector all union activities could be considered political, since they ultimately seek to influence government policy, and thus violate the First Amendment. [2]

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 , 567 U.S. 298(2012), which considered a "Temporary Special Assessment to Create a Political Fight-Back Fund" imposed upon a class of 42,000 State of California employees who were nonmembers, the Court held that a union had violated their rights by collecting fees in the absence of the notice and procedural requirements of Teachers Local No. 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986). While the case did not directly challenge Abood, the Court called into question the continued viability of Abood, as well as an earlier decision, Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740 (1961), stating that "dissent is not to be presumed—it must affirmatively be made known to the union by the dissenting employee", which has been used by unions to justify payment of full union dues from nonmembers who do not, in addition to remaining nonmembers, object to paying fees equal to full union dues.

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Quinn , No. 11-681, 573 U.S. ___(2014), which considered the validity of an agency fee policy affecting home health care workers receiving public funds in the state of Illinois; the Court held that the health care workers were not public-sector employees and thus could not be required to pay agency fees. While the Court did not rule directly on the First Amendment challenges to Abood in this decision, the majority opinion questioned the validity of Abood. Justice Alito, writing for the Court, stated in the decision from Harris that within the public sector, every activity of a public sector union could be considered political. "In the public sector, core issues such as wages, pensions, and benefits are important political issues, but that is generally not so in the private sector. ... [A]s state and local expenditures on employee wages and benefits have mushroomed, the importance of the difference between bargaining in the public and private sectors has been driven home." [3]

Procedural history

The immediate case began in 2015 when newly-elected Illinois governor Bruce Rauner took office. Rauner had run on an anti-union platform, and once in office, he issued an executive order that suspended collection of agency fees from non-union members who benefitted from a contract negotiated by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which represented Illinois public sector employees. Rauner also preemptively filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the AFSCME to challenge agency shop agreements as unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment. (Case 15-C-1235). Rauner used the decision from Harris to support these actions, arguing that agency-shop agreements violate nonmembers' right to free speech. [3] Rauner's executive order and comptroller instructions were challenged by AFSCME and other unions. [1]

In Rauner's federal case, the unions sought to dismiss the case, claiming he had no standing. In May 2015, the District Court judge found that Rauner lacked sufficient standing to issue the challenge, as he had "no personal interest at stake." Three state employees attempted to join the suit as co-plaintiffs, but the judge denied this order. Instead, the judge allowed the case to continue with the three employees as the sole plaintiffs. [4] These employees included Mark Janus, an Illinois child support specialist, who had contested the fees. [1]

Janus claimed that he should not need to pay fees to AFSCME because doing so constitutes paying for political speech with which Janus disagrees. [5] Under Illinois law, state government can require its employees to pay fees to a government union as a condition of employment. In March 2015, the three government employees represented by attorneys from the Illinois-based Liberty Justice Center and Virginia-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation took legal action to intervene in the case. [6] [7] [8] In May 2015, after Rauner was dropped from the case, it proceeded under the name Janus v. AFSCME. [9]

Meanwhile, the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass'n , No. 14-915, 578 U.S. ___(2016), had been working its way to the Supreme Court, which dealt with a similar complaint. In July 2015, after Friedrichs had been issued certiorari by the Supreme Court, the Illinois suit was put on hold pending Friedrichs. The Supreme Court heard the case, which challenged the Ninth's Circuit's decision affirming Abood. Before the Court could issue the decision, however, Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, and the case was decided 4–4, leaving in place the Ninth Circuit decision. [1] Observers believed that the Court would have likely ruled against agency fees based on the progression of the case. [10]

With no decision from Friedrichs, the Illinois cases were restarted. A new complaint was filed by Janus and other plaintiffs, alleging that the fees they paid under an agency-shop agreement violated their First Amendment rights. The unions sought to dismiss the case, arguing that Abood was settled law. The District Court dismissed the case. [11] On appeal in May 2017, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling to dismiss the case on the basis of Abood. (16-3638). [12] [13]

Supreme Court

Gnome-mime-sound-openclipart.svg
Oral arguments
Recording of oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
Problems playing this file? See media help.

On April 10, 2017, Neil Gorsuch was appointed to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Gorsuch was widely expected to side with conservative bloc, who ruled against the unions in Friedrichs. [14] Observers believed that based on the past deliberations, the decisions in Harris and Friedrichs, and Gorsuch's conservative jurisprudence, Janus would likely prevail before the Supreme Court. [10] Janus petitioned for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court, which was granted on September 28, 2017. The Supreme Court heard the oral argument of the parties on February 26, 2018.

Opinion of the Court

On June 27, 2018, the Court ruled in a 5–4 decision that the application of public sector union fees to non-members is a violation of the First Amendment, ruling against AFSCME. Justice Alito wrote for the Court, joined by Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Gorsuch. Alito wrote that agency-shop agreements violate "the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern." [15] Alito recognized that losing these fees would put a financial burden on the public sector unions, who would continue to have to represent nonmembers even without their agency fees, but stated that "we must weigh these disadvantages against the considerable windfall that unions have received." [15] In the decision, the Court held that the conclusion reached by Abood was inconsistent with the First Amendment and thus overruled that decision. [2]

Dissent

Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Kagan criticized the majority opinion as one that "overthrows a decision [Abood] entrenched in this nation's law — and in its economic life — for over 40 years." [15] Justice Sotomayor wrote her own separate dissent, critical of the weight given to First Amendment protections that had been established in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. , No. 10-779, 564 U.S. 552(2011) and subsequently used by the Court in cases like National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra , No. 16-1140, 585 U.S. ___(2018).

Subsequent developments

Public-sector union officials predicted that they would lose 10 to 30 percent of their members and tens of millions of dollars in revenue in the states that would be affected. [16] [15] The nation's two largest public sector unions lost the vast majority of agency-fee payers after the ruling. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees went from 112,233 nonmember agency-fee payers to 2,215 (a 98% decline) while Service Employees International Union went from 104,501 to 5,812 (94%), as per 2018 filings. However, there was little change in numbers of dues-paying members, and AFSCME retained 94% of members and agency-fee payers. [17] [18] [19]

Following the Supreme Court ruling, Mark Janus left his job with the state of Illinois to join the Illinois Policy Institute, a conservative think tank that funded his case. [20] [21]

Professionals in other fields have raised legal challenges to mandatory dues. For example, attorneys in Wisconsin have challenged the "integrated bar" requirement in their state, which (like more than half of US states) requires all practicing attorneys to be dues-paying members of the state bar association, under the same reasoning as Janus. [22] The case, Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin, was initially dismissed by the Western District Court of Wisconsin. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's decisions and the plaintiffs subsequently appealed this case to the Supreme Court, where their writ of certiorari was denied on June 1, 2020, over the dissents of Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. [23]

Award to Janus opposed

Janus received the Whittaker Chambers Award from the National Review Institute – an award opposed by the family of Whittaker Chambers, [24] [25] [26] which caused the NRI to discontinue the award two years after its creation.

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 Geiger, Kim (June 27, 2018). "U.S. Supreme Court gives Rauner major victory over labor, in ruling that could undercut public worker unions nationwide". Chicago Tribune . Retrieved June 27, 2018.
  2. 1 2 Bravin, Jess (June 27, 2018). "Supreme Court Deals Blow to Public-Sector Unions". The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved June 27, 2018.
  3. 1 2 Epps, Garrett (May 13, 2015). "Breaking the Law—and Blaming the Supreme Court". The Atlantic . Retrieved June 27, 2018.
  4. ↑ Pearson, Rick (May 19, 2016). "Judge drops Rauner 'fair share' suit, lets non-union workers' case proceed". Chicago Tribune . Retrieved June 27, 2018.
  5. ↑ "Plaintiffs' first amended complaint". June 1, 2015. Retrieved October 11, 2018.
  6. ↑ "State workers in Illinois sue to end mandatory union fees". Illinois Policy. March 23, 2015. Retrieved September 6, 2018.
  7. ↑ Ravve, Ruth (April 6, 2015). "Unions battle for survival in key strongholds as court cases challenge forced dues". Fox News. Retrieved September 6, 2018.
  8. ↑ "3 state employees want to join Rauner lawsuit over 'fair share' union fees". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved September 6, 2018.
  9. ↑ Pearson, Rick (May 19, 2015). "Judge drops Rauner 'fair share' suit, lets non-union workers' case proceed". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved September 6, 2018.
  10. 1 2 Liptak, Adam (September 28, 2017). "Supreme Court Will Hear Case on Mandatory Fees to Unions". The New York Times . Retrieved June 27, 2018.
  11. ↑ Janus v. AFSCME, No.1:15-cv-01235 ( N.D. Ill. September 13, 2016).
  12. ↑ Janus v. AFSCME, 851F.3d746 ( 7th Cir. 2017).
  13. ↑ Kitte, M.D. (May 21, 2017). "Appeals court tosses forced union dues lawsuit, next stop Supreme Court". Watchdog.org . Retrieved June 27, 2018.
  14. ↑ Capria, Francis (April 19, 2018). "Right-to-Work or Right-to-Free Ride?".
  15. 1 2 3 4 Liptak, Adam (June 27, 2018). "Supreme Court Ruling Delivers a Sharp Blow to Labor Unions". The New York Times . Retrieved July 7, 2018.
  16. ↑ Scheiber, Noam (June 27, 2018). "Labor Unions Will Be Smaller After Supreme Court Decision, but Maybe Not Weaker". The New York Times. Retrieved July 7, 2018.
  17. ↑ Iafolla, Robert (April 6, 2019). "Mass Exodus of Public Union Fee Payers After High Court Ruling". news.bloomberglaw.com. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  18. ↑ Eric Boehm (April 9, 2019). After the Supreme Court Said Unions Can’t Force Non-Members to Pay Dues, Almost All of Them Stopped. Reason.com, accessed 11 April 2019
  19. ↑ Gies, Heather (March 29, 2019). "A Blow But Not Fatal: 9 Months After Janus, AFSCME Reports 94% Retention".
  20. ↑ Pearson, Rick (July 22, 2018). "State employee in major union-undermining Supreme Court case will join conservative think tank, tour the country". Chicago Tribune.
  21. ↑ Armentrout, Mitchell (July 21, 2018). "Mark Janus quits state job for conservative think tank gig after landmark ruling". Chicago Sun Times.
  22. ↑ Frankel, Alison (December 29, 2019). "Next stop for first post-Janus challenge to mandatory state bar dues: Supreme Court". Reuters. Retrieved January 7, 2020.
  23. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/060120zor_g3bi.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  24. ↑ Bravin, Jess (March 28, 2019). "Whittaker Chambers Award Draws Criticism—From His Family: Family members say the conservative icon would be appalled by the recipients of the National Review's prize". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 30, 2019.
  25. ↑ "National Review Institute ends Whittaker Chambers Award amid his descendants' outcry over recipients". Washington Examiner. March 29, 2019. Retrieved March 30, 2019.
  26. ↑ Chambers, David (March 31, 2019). "Withdraw Whittaker". WhittakerChambers.org. Retrieved March 31, 2019.

Related Research Articles

In the context of labor law in the United States, the term "right-to-work laws" refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions which require employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation. Unlike the right to work definition as a human right in international law, U.S. right-to-work laws do not aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work but rather guarantee an employee's right to refrain from paying or being a member of a labor union.

In labor law, a union shop, also known as a post-entry closed shop, is a form of a union security clause. Under this, the employer agrees to either only hire labor union members or to require that any new employees who are not already union members become members within a certain amount of time. Use of the union shop varies widely from nation to nation, depending on the level of protection given trade unions in general.

A union security agreement is a contractual agreement, usually part of a union collective bargaining agreement, in which an employer and a trade or labor union agree on the extent to which the union may compel employees to join the union, and/or whether the employer will collect dues, fees, and assessments on behalf of the union.

An open shop is a place of employment at which one is not required to join or financially support a union as a condition of hiring or continued employment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 California Proposition 75</span> 2005 California ballot proposition

Proposition 75 was a ballot proposition in the California special election, 2005.

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation, operating as the Freedom Foundation, is a free market conservative think tank founded in the state of Washington. Freedom Foundation has offices in Washington, Oregon, California, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. In 2021, they announced their national expansion into all 50 states. The organization is registered with the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roberts Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court since 2005

The Roberts Court is the time since 2005 during which the Supreme Court of the United States has been led by John Roberts as Chief Justice. Roberts succeeded William Rehnquist as Chief Justice after Rehnquist's death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neil Gorsuch</span> US Supreme Court justice since 2017 (born 1967)

Neil McGill Gorsuch is an American jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President Donald Trump on January 31, 2017, and has served since April 10, 2017.

Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, 500 U.S. 507 (1991), deals with First Amendment rights and unions in public employment.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, established in 1968, is a nonprofit organization that seeks to advance right-to-work laws in the United States.

Davenport v. Washington Education Association, 551 U.S. 177 (2007), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it does not violate the First Amendment for a state to require its public-sector unions to receive affirmative authorization from a non-member before spending that nonmember's agency fees for election-related purposes.

<i>Locke v. Karass</i> 2009 United States Supreme Court case

Locke v. Karass, 555 U.S. 207 (2009), is a court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Constitution permits the local chapter of a labor union to charge a "service fee" to non-members to cover non-local litigation expenses if (a) the expenses are "appropriately related to collective bargaining" and (b) there is a reciprocal relationship between the local chapter and the national union. The case expanded on and clarified the earlier Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, which permitted such service fees for non-political activities but did not reach a consensus on whether "national" expenses were chargeable.

Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative. The rights identified by the Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck have since come to be known as "Beck rights," and defining what Beck rights are and how a union must fulfill its duties regarding them is an active area of modern United States labor law.

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), was a US labor law case where the United States Supreme Court upheld the maintaining of a union shop in a public workplace. Public school teachers in Detroit had sought to overturn the requirement that they pay fees equivalent to union dues on the grounds that they opposed public sector collective bargaining and objected to the political activities of the union. In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed that the union shop, legal in the private sector, is also legal in the public sector. They found that non-members may be assessed agency fees to recover the costs of "collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes" while insisting that objectors to union membership or policy may not have their dues used for other ideological or political purposes.

Executive Order 10988 is a United States presidential executive order issued by President John F. Kennedy on January 17, 1962 that granted federal employees the right to collective bargaining. This executive order was a breakthrough for public sector workers, who were not protected under the 1935 Wagner Act.

Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (2014), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court regarding provisions of Illinois state law that allowed a union security agreement. Since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 prohibited the closed shop, states could still choose whether to allow unions to collect fees from non-union members since the collective agreements with the employer would still benefit non-union members. The Court decided 5–4 that Illinois's Public Labor Relations Act, which permitted the union security agreements, violated the First Amendment. A similar case was decided by the Court in 2018, Janus v AFSCME, overturning the Court's unanimous decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) which the appeals court had upheld in Harris.

Knox v. Service Employees International Union, 567 U.S. 298 (2012), is a United States constitutional law case. The United States Supreme Court held in a 7–2 decision that Dianne Knox and other non-members of the Service Employees International Union did not receive the required notice of a $12 million assessment the union charged them to raise money for the union's political fund. In a tighter 5–4 ruling, the court further held that the long-standing precedent, the First Amendment requirement that non-union members covered by union contracts be given the chance to "opt out" of special fees was insufficient. Setting new precedent, the majority ruled that non-members shall be sent notice giving them the option to opt into special fees.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), is a United States labor law case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States. At issue in the case was whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) should be overruled, with public-sector "agency shop" arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment, and whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring employees to consent affirmatively to subsidizing such speech. Specifically, the case concerned public sector collective bargaining by the California Teachers Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">AFSCME Council 31</span>

AFSCME Council 31 is the Illinois state chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a union of public service workers in the public, private and non-profit sectors. AFSCME Council 31 has "100,000 active and retired members", including "approximately 40,000 state employees working in more than 50 departments, authorities, boards, and commissions under the authority of the Governor."

Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), also known as Alliance for Open Society II, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that compelled speech required as a condition for funding on foreign non-governmental affiliates of U.S. non-government organizations does not violate First Amendment rights.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.