Background about the Supreme Court ruling on Janus

On June 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public sector unions cannot charge fees to employees covered by the union’s collective bargaining agreement, if they do not wish to join the union. In a 5-4 decision in Janus v. AFSCME, the court ruled the mandated fees are unconstitutional.

With the Janus decision the Court overruled the precedent set in the 1977 case Abood v. the Detroit Board of Education. In Abood, the Court let stand a Michigan statute which permits local government unions to charge fees to all employees covered by union-negotiated contracts. More than 40 years after that ruling, Mark Janus, an employee of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, and his lawyers claimed that the “fair share” dues he had to pay the union violated his right to free speech, and resulted in compelled support of a political organization that was contrary to his personal views. Janus’ employment contract is covered by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

The implications of the Court’s Janus decision could be wide-ranging, as millions of public-sector workers will now be able to opt out of paying dues to their labor unions, potentially weakening the unions’ membership rolls and power. Twenty-eight states have already enacted “right-to-work” (through legislation or constitutional amendment), allowing workers to opt out of paying “fair share” dues. The remaining 22 have not, but will now be subject to the Court’s ruling affecting all public sector unions. Collectively, “right-to-work” states have far lower union membership, with 6.3 percent unionized, compared with 15.4 percent unionized in non-right-to-work states.