Supporters of Illinois government employee Mark Janus cheer as he walks to thank them, outside the Supreme Court on Feb. 26, 2018, in Washington, D.C. [File/AP] ▲

A federal appeals court ruled this week that former state worker Mark Janus is not entitled to a refund of fair share fees he paid to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

The three-judge panel said AFSCME acted in good faith when it collected the fees from non-members for four decades before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that the fair share fees were unconstitutional.

The Liberty Justice Center, which has provided legal counsel to Janus, said it would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

AFSCME called the ruling "a significant victory."

"The three-judge panel ruled, just as the district court before them, that the union acted in good faith under the law and court precedent that existed at the time to represent every member and to collect only those fair share fees from individuals who chose not to join the union," said AFSCME spokesman Anders Lindall.

Lindall said that since last year's Supreme Court decision, there have been 20 cases filed by people trying to recoup fair share fees from public unions. Unions have prevailed in every one of them, he said.

Janus worked as a child-support specialist for the Department of Healthcare and Family Services. Janus chose not to join AFSCME, but under a law in effect for 41 years, he was required to pay $44.58 a month in fair share fees to cover the cost of collective bargaining and other work-related activities by the union. The law forbid the money to be used for political purposes such as supporting candidates. Janus was seeking the return of about $3,000 in fair share fees.

With support from legal groups that support right-to-work laws, Janus sued, contending fair share fees nonetheless violated his First Amendment rights. Last year, the Supreme Court found in Janus' favor and determined that fair share fees subsidized private speech on matters of public policy.

After the ruling, Janus returned to court and said he is entitled to a refund of the fair share fees he was assessed. However, both a federal district court and now an appellate court ruled that when the union was collecting fair share fees, it was acting in good faith with the law that was in effect at the time. The appellate court said Janus prevailed in no longer being assessed fair share fees.

"Any remaining relief was for the district court to consider," the court opinion said. "That court declined to grant monetary damages, on the ground that AFSCME's good‐faith defense shielded the union from such liability. We agree with that conclusion.

"While this may not be all that Mr. Janus hoped for in this litigation, it is not unusual for remedies to be curtailed in light of broader legal doctrines," the opinion continued. "Moreover, though Mr. Janus contends that he did not want any of the benefits of AFSCME's collective bargaining and other representative activities over the years, he received them. Putting the First Amendment issues that concerned the Supreme Court in Janus II to one side, there was no unjust 'windfall" to the union, as Mr. Janus alleges, but rather an exchange of money for services."