{"id":102,"date":"2019-07-01T21:35:37","date_gmt":"2019-07-01T21:35:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=102"},"modified":"2026-03-05T15:00:18","modified_gmt":"2026-03-05T15:00:18","slug":"janus-v-afscme","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/chapter\/janus-v-afscme\/","title":{"raw":"Janus v. AFSCME","rendered":"Janus v. AFSCME"},"content":{"raw":"<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\r\n<h3>Learning Outcomes<\/h3>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Discuss the impact of the Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\nOn June 27, 2018 the Supreme Court decided the case of Janus v. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees), ruling that agency fees\u2014the fees that unions charge non-members that are covered by collective bargaining agreements\u2014violate those worker\u2019s First Amendment right to free speech. The case was settled in a 5\u20134 vote with Neil Gorsuch casting the deciding vote. The Trump Administration also filed a brief in support of Janus.\r\n\r\nThe plaintiff in the case was Mark Janus, a child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. He joined a lawsuit originally filed by then Illinois governor Bruce Rauner (Republican) in 2015. A federal judge ruled that Rauner had no standing; since he wasn\u2019t paying agency fees, he was insufficiently connected to or harmed by the law and couldn\u2019t proceed. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center (funded by Rauner) recruited Janus to carry the case forward.\r\n\r\nA legal precedent for agency fees was established in the unanimous 1977 Supreme Court case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which distinguished between union membership dues, which must be voluntary and may contribute to political activity and agency or \u201cfair share\u201d fees\u2014generally a percentage of union dues\u2014that are required to cover the cost of union representation, including collective bargaining and arbitration. The Supreme Court heard related arguments in the 2016 Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case that ended in a tie. Janus\u2019 position was that the activities \u201cagency fees\u201d pay for are inherently political and support union policies he doesn\u2019t agree with. Specifically, Janus claimed that the fees violate his First Amendment right of freedom of speech. The union countered that if employees didn\u2019t pay agency fees, they would gain an unfair benefit\u2014essentially, a free ride.\r\n\r\nThe majority opinion rejected the <em>stare decisis<\/em> principles (precedent) set by Abood, stating the decision was \u201cpoorly reasoned\u201d and that \u201cthe practice of states and public-sector unions collecting agency fees from nonconsenting employees was a violation of the First Amendment, and that no further agency fees or other forms of payment to a public-sector union could be collected, nor could attempts be made to collect such payments from employees without their consent.\u201d[footnote]<a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2017\/16-1466\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31<\/a>. Oyez. Accessed July 22, 2019.[\/footnote] In a dissenting opinion, Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, \u201cfaulted the Majority for upsetting the balance that Abood brought to public-sector labor relations, and for disregarding stare decisis principles.\u201d[footnote]Ibid.[\/footnote] Justice Kagan argued that \u201cThe balance Abood struck between public employers\u2019 interests and public employees\u2019 expression is right at home in First Amendment doctrine.\"[footnote]<a href=\"https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Janus_v._AFSCME\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Janus v. AFSCME<\/a>. Ballotpedia. Accessed July 22, 2019.[\/footnote] Differences of opinion aside, the result is that public sector unions can no longer charge agency fees and workers must affirmatively opt into union membership, rather than the default being membership.\r\n<div class=\"textbox tryit\">\r\n<h3>PRactice Question<\/h3>\r\nhttps:\/\/assess.lumenlearning.com\/practice\/4ad73b61-4af3-449e-8065-b3cdefcd17ca\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nSo what are the implications for the private sector? As a Washington Examiner headline summarizes, \u201cExtending [the] Supreme Court\u2019s Janus decision to private-sector unions [would be an] uphill battle.\u201d[footnote]Langford, James. \"<a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/business\/extending-supreme-courts-janus-decision-to-private-sector-unions-an-uphill-battle\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Extending Supreme Court's Janus Decision to Private-Sector Unions an Uphill Battle<\/a>.\" Washington Examiner. Juy 17, 2018. Accessed July 22, 2019.[\/footnote] In the article, Harvard University labor professor Benjamin Sachs notes that Supreme Court precedent [interpretation of the Constitution] \u201cis generally held to apply to things the government does, not things that private-sector employers do.\u201d However, the article also mentioned that the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation followed up the Janus ruling with a request for the Supreme Court to consider a case involving private-sector union fees and quoted Right to Work Foundation president Mark Mix stating the \"While this [the Janus] victory represents a massive step forward in the fight to protect American workers from forced unionism, that fight is far from over. There remains much work to do to both enforce and expand upon this historic victory over coercive unionism.\u201d That said, with the percentage of unionized workers in the private sector declining steadily, the primary battleground will likely remain the public sector. For perspective, Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that the union membership rate of public-sector workers is approximately 34%\u2014over five times the percent of private-sector workers.[footnote]Bureau of Labor Statistics. \"<a href=\"https:\/\/www.bls.gov\/news.release\/union2.nr0.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Union Members Summary<\/a>.\" January 18, 2019. Accessed July 22, 2019.[\/footnote] Education news site The74 described the situation prior to the court\u2019s decision: \u201cJanus is a threat to labor because government employees are most of what\u2019s left in the movement.\u201d[footnote]Cantor, David. \"<a href=\"https:\/\/www.the74million.org\/article\/labor-in-the-age-of-janus-6-things-to-keep-in-mind-about-american-unions-on-the-eve-of-a-pivotal-supreme-court-ruling\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Labor in the Age of Janus: 6 Things to Keep in Mind About American Unions on the Eve of a Pivotal Supreme Court Case<\/a>.\" The74. June 12, 2018. Accessed July 22, 2019.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nThe Janus decision not only affected unions, it will have a ripple effect on the politicians, institutions and other interests that unions traditionally support. As The New York Times noted, the Janus decision will also impact \u201ca vast network of groups dedicated to advancing liberal policies and candidates.\u201d[footnote]Scheiber, Noam. \"<a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2018\/07\/01\/business\/economy\/unions-funding-political.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Supreme Court Labor Decision Wasn't Just a Loss for Unions<\/a>.\" The New York Times. July 1, 2018. Accessed July 22, 2019.[\/footnote] Indeed, liberal activists claim that eliminating the financial support to groups working for civil and immigrant rights and supporting voter registration and Democratic campaigns was the primary goal of conservative groups behind the Janus case. And those groups don\u2019t dispute that fact.\r\n\r\nUnions were engaged in contingency planning\u2014internally and with their stakeholder groups\u2014well in advance of the Supreme Court decision. For example, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) reduced its 2018 budget by 30% and has been working with leaders of liberal groups for two years to develop plans to leverage people power (approximately 2 million members) and the union\u2019s fund-raising capacity to partially offset the loss of financial support. Although organizations will have to be more selective about the projects they pursue and some programs will have to be scaled back or eliminated, the consensus is that the loss of union contributions will be offset by wealthy liberal donors, individual contributions and the \u201cpeople power\u201d of union members and other voters.[footnote]Ibid.[\/footnote]","rendered":"<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\n<h3>Learning Outcomes<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Discuss the impact of the Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p>On June 27, 2018 the Supreme Court decided the case of Janus v. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees), ruling that agency fees\u2014the fees that unions charge non-members that are covered by collective bargaining agreements\u2014violate those worker\u2019s First Amendment right to free speech. The case was settled in a 5\u20134 vote with Neil Gorsuch casting the deciding vote. The Trump Administration also filed a brief in support of Janus.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff in the case was Mark Janus, a child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. He joined a lawsuit originally filed by then Illinois governor Bruce Rauner (Republican) in 2015. A federal judge ruled that Rauner had no standing; since he wasn\u2019t paying agency fees, he was insufficiently connected to or harmed by the law and couldn\u2019t proceed. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center (funded by Rauner) recruited Janus to carry the case forward.<\/p>\n<p>A legal precedent for agency fees was established in the unanimous 1977 Supreme Court case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which distinguished between union membership dues, which must be voluntary and may contribute to political activity and agency or \u201cfair share\u201d fees\u2014generally a percentage of union dues\u2014that are required to cover the cost of union representation, including collective bargaining and arbitration. The Supreme Court heard related arguments in the 2016 Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case that ended in a tie. Janus\u2019 position was that the activities \u201cagency fees\u201d pay for are inherently political and support union policies he doesn\u2019t agree with. Specifically, Janus claimed that the fees violate his First Amendment right of freedom of speech. The union countered that if employees didn\u2019t pay agency fees, they would gain an unfair benefit\u2014essentially, a free ride.<\/p>\n<p>The majority opinion rejected the <em>stare decisis<\/em> principles (precedent) set by Abood, stating the decision was \u201cpoorly reasoned\u201d and that \u201cthe practice of states and public-sector unions collecting agency fees from nonconsenting employees was a violation of the First Amendment, and that no further agency fees or other forms of payment to a public-sector union could be collected, nor could attempts be made to collect such payments from employees without their consent.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31. Oyez. Accessed July 22, 2019.\" id=\"return-footnote-102-1\" href=\"#footnote-102-1\" aria-label=\"Footnote 1\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[1]<\/sup><\/a> In a dissenting opinion, Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, \u201cfaulted the Majority for upsetting the balance that Abood brought to public-sector labor relations, and for disregarding stare decisis principles.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Ibid.\" id=\"return-footnote-102-2\" href=\"#footnote-102-2\" aria-label=\"Footnote 2\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[2]<\/sup><\/a> Justice Kagan argued that \u201cThe balance Abood struck between public employers\u2019 interests and public employees\u2019 expression is right at home in First Amendment doctrine.&#8221;<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Janus v. AFSCME. Ballotpedia. Accessed July 22, 2019.\" id=\"return-footnote-102-3\" href=\"#footnote-102-3\" aria-label=\"Footnote 3\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[3]<\/sup><\/a> Differences of opinion aside, the result is that public sector unions can no longer charge agency fees and workers must affirmatively opt into union membership, rather than the default being membership.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox tryit\">\n<h3>PRactice Question<\/h3>\n<p>\t<iframe id=\"assessment_practice_4ad73b61-4af3-449e-8065-b3cdefcd17ca\" class=\"resizable\" src=\"https:\/\/assess.lumenlearning.com\/practice\/4ad73b61-4af3-449e-8065-b3cdefcd17ca?iframe_resize_id=assessment_practice_id_4ad73b61-4af3-449e-8065-b3cdefcd17ca\" frameborder=\"0\" style=\"border:none;width:100%;height:100%;min-height:300px;\"><br \/>\n\t<\/iframe><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>So what are the implications for the private sector? As a Washington Examiner headline summarizes, \u201cExtending [the] Supreme Court\u2019s Janus decision to private-sector unions [would be an] uphill battle.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Langford, James. &quot;Extending Supreme Court's Janus Decision to Private-Sector Unions an Uphill Battle.&quot; Washington Examiner. Juy 17, 2018. Accessed July 22, 2019.\" id=\"return-footnote-102-4\" href=\"#footnote-102-4\" aria-label=\"Footnote 4\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[4]<\/sup><\/a> In the article, Harvard University labor professor Benjamin Sachs notes that Supreme Court precedent [interpretation of the Constitution] \u201cis generally held to apply to things the government does, not things that private-sector employers do.\u201d However, the article also mentioned that the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation followed up the Janus ruling with a request for the Supreme Court to consider a case involving private-sector union fees and quoted Right to Work Foundation president Mark Mix stating the &#8220;While this [the Janus] victory represents a massive step forward in the fight to protect American workers from forced unionism, that fight is far from over. There remains much work to do to both enforce and expand upon this historic victory over coercive unionism.\u201d That said, with the percentage of unionized workers in the private sector declining steadily, the primary battleground will likely remain the public sector. For perspective, Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that the union membership rate of public-sector workers is approximately 34%\u2014over five times the percent of private-sector workers.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Bureau of Labor Statistics. &quot;Union Members Summary.&quot; January 18, 2019. Accessed July 22, 2019.\" id=\"return-footnote-102-5\" href=\"#footnote-102-5\" aria-label=\"Footnote 5\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[5]<\/sup><\/a> Education news site The74 described the situation prior to the court\u2019s decision: \u201cJanus is a threat to labor because government employees are most of what\u2019s left in the movement.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Cantor, David. &quot;Labor in the Age of Janus: 6 Things to Keep in Mind About American Unions on the Eve of a Pivotal Supreme Court Case.&quot; The74. June 12, 2018. Accessed July 22, 2019.\" id=\"return-footnote-102-6\" href=\"#footnote-102-6\" aria-label=\"Footnote 6\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>The Janus decision not only affected unions, it will have a ripple effect on the politicians, institutions and other interests that unions traditionally support. As The New York Times noted, the Janus decision will also impact \u201ca vast network of groups dedicated to advancing liberal policies and candidates.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Scheiber, Noam. &quot;Supreme Court Labor Decision Wasn't Just a Loss for Unions.&quot; The New York Times. July 1, 2018. Accessed July 22, 2019.\" id=\"return-footnote-102-7\" href=\"#footnote-102-7\" aria-label=\"Footnote 7\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[7]<\/sup><\/a> Indeed, liberal activists claim that eliminating the financial support to groups working for civil and immigrant rights and supporting voter registration and Democratic campaigns was the primary goal of conservative groups behind the Janus case. And those groups don\u2019t dispute that fact.<\/p>\n<p>Unions were engaged in contingency planning\u2014internally and with their stakeholder groups\u2014well in advance of the Supreme Court decision. For example, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) reduced its 2018 budget by 30% and has been working with leaders of liberal groups for two years to develop plans to leverage people power (approximately 2 million members) and the union\u2019s fund-raising capacity to partially offset the loss of financial support. Although organizations will have to be more selective about the projects they pursue and some programs will have to be scaled back or eliminated, the consensus is that the loss of union contributions will be offset by wealthy liberal donors, individual contributions and the \u201cpeople power\u201d of union members and other voters.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Ibid.\" id=\"return-footnote-102-8\" href=\"#footnote-102-8\" aria-label=\"Footnote 8\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\t\t\t <section class=\"citations-section\" role=\"contentinfo\">\n\t\t\t <h3>Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t <div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <div id=\"citation-list-102\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t <div class=\"licensing\"><div class=\"license-attribution-dropdown-subheading\">CC licensed content, Original<\/div><ul class=\"citation-list\"><li>Janus v. AFSCME. <strong>Authored by<\/strong>: Nina Burokas. <strong>Provided by<\/strong>: Lumen Learning. <strong>License<\/strong>: <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"license\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/\">CC BY: Attribution<\/a><\/em><\/li><\/ul><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t <\/section><hr class=\"before-footnotes clear\" \/><div class=\"footnotes\"><ol><li id=\"footnote-102-1\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2017\/16-1466\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31<\/a>. Oyez. Accessed July 22, 2019. <a href=\"#return-footnote-102-1\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 1\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-102-2\">Ibid. <a href=\"#return-footnote-102-2\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 2\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-102-3\"><a href=\"https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Janus_v._AFSCME\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Janus v. AFSCME<\/a>. Ballotpedia. Accessed July 22, 2019. <a href=\"#return-footnote-102-3\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 3\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-102-4\">Langford, James. \"<a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/business\/extending-supreme-courts-janus-decision-to-private-sector-unions-an-uphill-battle\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Extending Supreme Court's Janus Decision to Private-Sector Unions an Uphill Battle<\/a>.\" Washington Examiner. Juy 17, 2018. Accessed July 22, 2019. <a href=\"#return-footnote-102-4\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 4\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-102-5\">Bureau of Labor Statistics. \"<a href=\"https:\/\/www.bls.gov\/news.release\/union2.nr0.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Union Members Summary<\/a>.\" January 18, 2019. Accessed July 22, 2019. <a href=\"#return-footnote-102-5\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 5\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-102-6\">Cantor, David. \"<a href=\"https:\/\/www.the74million.org\/article\/labor-in-the-age-of-janus-6-things-to-keep-in-mind-about-american-unions-on-the-eve-of-a-pivotal-supreme-court-ruling\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Labor in the Age of Janus: 6 Things to Keep in Mind About American Unions on the Eve of a Pivotal Supreme Court Case<\/a>.\" The74. June 12, 2018. Accessed July 22, 2019. <a href=\"#return-footnote-102-6\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 6\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-102-7\">Scheiber, Noam. \"<a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2018\/07\/01\/business\/economy\/unions-funding-political.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Supreme Court Labor Decision Wasn't Just a Loss for Unions<\/a>.\" The New York Times. July 1, 2018. Accessed July 22, 2019. <a href=\"#return-footnote-102-7\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 7\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-102-8\">Ibid. <a href=\"#return-footnote-102-8\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 8\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":17,"menu_order":8,"template":"","meta":{"_candela_citation":"[{\"type\":\"original\",\"description\":\"Janus v. AFSCME\",\"author\":\"Nina Burokas\",\"organization\":\"Lumen Learning\",\"url\":\"\",\"project\":\"\",\"license\":\"cc-by\",\"license_terms\":\"\"}]","CANDELA_OUTCOMES_GUID":"0ec4ffe5-705d-4c5c-a672-31b0f52453b1, 16f1a2b0-bcb4-46f6-ac40-2ccdc0268e18","pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-102","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":74,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/102","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/102\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3471,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/102\/revisions\/3471"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/74"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/102\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=102"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=102"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}