Janus v. AFSCME

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Janus v. AFSCME
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: February 26, 2018
Decided: June 27, 2018
Outcome
Seventh Circuit overruled
Vote
5 - 4
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch
Dissenting
Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan

On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (Janus v. AFSCME), holding that public sector unions cannot require non-member employees to pay agency fees covering the costs of non-political union activities. This holding overturned precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education in 1977.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2017 unions represented nearly 8 million public sector workers — 38.4 percent of the total public sector workforce. Conversely, unions represented 7.3 percent of private sector workers. The high rate of public sector unionization gave those unions considerable political influence at the local, state, and federal levels. Because of this, the court's decision in Janus stood to have a significant political impact. Agency fee opponents argued that requiring such fees violated individual workers' First Amendment rights by compelling them to give financial support to an organization whose political activities they might not support. Agency fee proponents contended that these fees were not used for political purposes (in keeping with the court's prior decision in Abood) and were necessary to support the costs associated with representing non-members.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Mark Janus, a public sector employee in Illinois, asked the Supreme Court to overrule its precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.
  • The issue: "Should Abood be overruled and public sector agency fee arrangements declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment?"[2]
  • The outcome: On a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court overruled Abood, declaring agency fees unconstitutional.[3]

    • Background

    Legal question

    This was a case about labor union agency fees paid by public sector employees. Generally, members of a labor union pay fees to the union. Those fees support the union's activities. Unions' activities can include collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment, as well as political activities like lobbying. Some public sector employees do not want to join a union, and some are opposed to unions' political activities. In recognition of those employees' First Amendment rights, they cannot be required to financially support a union's political activities. However, in the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Education Association, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it was not a violation of employees' First Amendment rights to require them to pay fees to support the union activities from which they benefited, like collective bargaining. Fees from non-member employees who do not want to support a union's political activities are called agency fees or fair share fees. Agency fees are "a proportionate share of the costs of collective bargaining and contract administration."[4]

    In support of agency fees, unions had argued that objecting employees still benefited from the union's bargaining and administrative activities and that it was not unconstitutional for employees to be required to pay for those benefits. Non-union member employees who objected to agency fees had argued that paying agency fees violates their First Amendment rights to the same extent as paying fees to support a union's expressly political activities.

    Case background

    The plaintiff in this case was Mark Janus, a public sector employee in Illinois. Janus challenged an Illinois statute requiring public sector employees to pay agency fees. The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees was named as the defendant in the suit.

    The precedent established in Abood was challenged by public school teachers in California in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. That 2016 case involved a California statute similar to the Illinois statute Janus challenged. However, the Supreme Court of the United States was not able to issue a determinative ruling in Friedrichs. Friedrichs was decided by the court after the death of former Justice Antonin Scalia but before the appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch. With only eight justices, the court split 4 to 4 in Friedrichs. A 4-to-4 split leaves in place the lower court's ruling but does not create any binding precedent.[5]

    Petitioner's challenge

    The petitioner challenged the precedent set in Abood v. Detroit Education Association. He argued that the court should overrule Abood.[2]

    Certiorari granted

    On June 6, 2017, the petitioner initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitioner's request for certiorari on September 28, 2017. Argument in the case was held on February 26, 2018.[2]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "Twice in the past five years this Court has questioned its holding in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977) that it is constitutional for a government to force its employees to pay agency fees to an exclusive representative for speaking and contracting with the government over policies that affect their profession. See Harris v. Quinn, _U.S._, _, 134 S.Ct. 2618, 2632-34 (2014); Knox v. SEIU, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, _, 132 S. Ct. 2277, 2289 (2012). Last term this Court split 4 to 4 on whether to overrule Abood. Friedrichs v. Cal. Teachers Ass'n, _U.S._, 136 S. Ct. 1083 (2016). This case presents the same question presented in Friedrichs: should Abood be overruled and public sector agency fee arrangements declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment?"[2]

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    On a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court overruled Abood.[3]

    Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion for the court majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. Alito concluded that the agency fee arrangement "violates the First Amendment and cannot continue."[3]

    “ Abood was poorly reasoned. It has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions. Developments since Abood was handed down have shed new light on the issue of agency fees, and no reliance interests on the part of public-sector unions are sufficient to justify the perpetuation of the free speech violations that Abood has countenanced for the past 41 years. Abood is therefore overruled.[3][8] ”


    Reviewing the court's First Amendment precedents, Alito ruled that the agency fee arrangements violated employees' First Amendment free speech rights. He also concluded that public sector employees must affirmatively consent to paying any type of union fee, rather than being required to affirmatively opt out in order to avoid paying. He rejected arguments about states' and unions' reliance on the Abood decision, writing that those reliance interests did not outweigh employees' First Amendment rights.[3]

    Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented. In Justice Kagan's dissent, joined by all the dissenting justices, Kagan criticized the majority's decision to overrule Abood. She wrote, "Rarely if ever has the Court overruled a decision—let alone one of this import—with so little regard for the usual principles of stare decisis." Kagan argued that Abood was a workable precedent that was "deeply entrenched, in both the law and the real world." She argued, "The balance Abood struck between public employers’ interests and public employees’ expression is right at home in First Amendment doctrine."[3]

    State legislative responses

    See also: Public sector union policy in the United States

    In anticipation of and in response to this ruling, bills relating to public sector employee unions were introduced in state legislatures across the United States. The following is a list of relevant bills introduced in or passed by state legislatures throughout the country. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. For additional information on public section union legislation, see this article.

    Aftermath

    Reactions

    The following is a sample of reactions to the court's ruling in Janus v. AFSCME:

    Support

    “ In its 5-4 ruling Wednesday in Janus vs. AFSCME, the Supreme Court overturned decades-old precedent that allowed government unions to require public employees to pay union fees or risk being fired.

    Now millions of teachers, police officers, firefighters and other government employees across the country gain the freedom to decide if paying a union is a worthwhile proposition. This is how it should have always been – no one should be forced to finance an organization he or she disagrees with.

    The Supreme Court found that forcing public employees to pay union fees as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. This is because government unions are inherently political. Collective bargaining in the public sector is no different from lobbying by any other special interest group. Subjects of bargaining in the public sector – like pay, tenure, and pension funding – are political choices that no worker should be forced to finance.[9][8]

    		”
    —Trey Kovacs, labor policy analyst for the Competitive Enterprise Institute
    “ For those of us who support individual liberty, the demise of public-sector unions and their illegal payment schemes is most welcome for several important reasons, including the three below. First, as Justice Alito explained in his opinion, no person should be compelled under state or federal law to pay money to groups that stand in opposition to his or her political beliefs. ... Second, the presence of public-sector unions often leads to cronyism and the creation of sweetheart deals provided to groups willing to sell their loyalty at the ballot box in exchange for special treatment. ... Third, public-sector unions have been some of the biggest opponents of important pro-liberty reforms, especially in education. ... Public-sector unions have unjustly benefited from unconstitutional policies and cronyism for generations, but thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus, that will soon change. Advocates of the free market and individual liberty should remember this day for many decades to come as a major victory for freedom.[10][8] ”
    —Justin Haskins, executive director and research fellow at The Heartland Institute
    “ Individuals have a First Amendment right not to be forced to pay money for political activity that they do not support. Could the government force you to pay the Republican Party for that tax cut you received, or the Democratic Party for your healthcare? Of course not! Government unions will say that it’s not fair that they are required to represent nonunion members in collective bargaining who don’t pay them for those benefits. But there is no reason to think that every benefit that the union negotiates is exactly what every worker would negotiate for themselves.[11][8] ”
    —Jeffrey Schwab, senior attorney at the Liberty Justice Center, which represented Janus

    Opposition

    “ Janus uproots an entrenched principle of labor law. Since passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, collective bargaining has incorporated the principle of majority rule: when employees vote by a majority to be represented by a union, the union has a legal duty to represent everyone, members or not.

    The union's duty extends even to representing nonmembers individually -- for instance, if they are unfairly fired. To prevent free riders from bearing the fruits of union representation without paying a penny for it, federal law governing the private sector, as well as state law governing the public sector in nearly half the states, approves charging nonmembers a 'fair-share' fee. …

    Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito finds that the fair-share fee 'violates the free speech rights of nonmembers.' The decision, in effect, requires union members to subsidize services to nonmembers.[12][8]

    		”
    —Craig Becker, general counsel to the AFL-CIO
    “ Today’s radical decision by the Supreme Court is a blatant slap in the face for educators, nurses, firefighters, police officers and all public servants who make our communities strong and safe. We are living in a system that is rigged to benefit special interests and billionaires, all at the expense of working people. Those behind this case know that unions amplify workers’ voices and transform their words into powerful and collective action. Even though the Supreme Court sided with corporate CEOs and billionaires over working Americans, unions will continue to be the best vehicle on the path to the middle class.[13][8] ”
    —Lily Eskelsen García, president of the National Education Association
    “ The conservative organizations supporting the Janus Supreme Court case have been very clear about their goal. They are determined to destroy unions and stop the most significant obstacle they face to concentrating wealth, privatizing public services and schools and deregulating worker and environmental protections, and Janus is not the only victory anti-union forces have had this year.[14][8] ”
    —Lara Skinner, associate director of the Worker's Institute at Cornell's School of Industrial and Labor Relations

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Union Members — 2017," January 19, 2018
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Supreme Court of the United States, "Janus v. AFSCME: Question Presented," September 28, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 United States Supreme Court, "Janus v. AFSCME Opinion," June 27, 2018
    4. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, "Janus v. AFSCME: Opinion," March 21, 2017
    5. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31," accessed May 9, 2018
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Janus v. AFSCME: Oral argument," argued February 26, 2018
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Janus v. AFSCME: Transcript," argued February 26, 2018
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    9. ↑ Fox News, "Supreme Court's Janus decision is a win for government workers (and all Americans)," June 27, 2018
    10. ↑ The Hill, "Janus could destroy some public-sector unions, and that's a good thing," June 27, 2018
    11. ↑ Washington Examiner, "Opinion: Supreme Court's Janus ruling finally gives voice to 5M workers," June 27, 2018
    12. ↑ CNN.com, "Supreme Court won't have the last word on worker rights," June 27, 2018
    13. ↑ AFSCME, "America Needs Unions Now More than Even As Supreme Court Sides with Corporate Billionaires Rigging Economy Against Workers," June 27, 2018
    14. ↑ The Hill, "An attack on public sector unions is an attack on democracy," June 27, 2018
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Editorial Content
    Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Alexis Thacker • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Janus_v._AFSCME&oldid=8892107"