Janus v. AFSCME
| Janus v. AFSCME | |
|---|---|
| Argued February 26, 2018 Decided June 27, 2018 | |
| Full case name | Mark Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al. |
| Docket no. | 16-1466 |
| Citations | 585 U.S. 878 (more) 138 S. Ct. 2448; 201 L. Ed. 2d 924 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Judgment 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). |
| Questions presented | |
| Should Abood be overruled and public sector agency fee arrangements declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment? | |
| Holding | |
| 1. The District Court had jurisdiction over petitioner’s suit. 2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Gorsuch |
| Dissent | Sotomayor |
| Dissent | Kagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. 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, 585 U.S. 878 (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 most of 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.