The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 7-2 against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in a case dealing with a special fee placed on non-union workers that was used for political purposes.
California law enables the state to create an “agency shop” that makes payment of union fees compulsory for all public employees, even if they aren’t members of the union. However, in 2006, the SEIU called for a special assessment to support their political campaigning on ballot initiatives.
Recommended Stories
In the majority opinion, Justice Sam Alito argued that, in the past, the Court has recognized the ability of unions to extract fees from nonmembers who still benefit from their collective bargaining. At the same time, he argued, there’s been a different line when it comes to money being used to finance political activity. Also, under a prior Supreme Court ruling, known as Hudson, the union was supposed to provide notice to everybody who pays fees about that spending.
“Hudson rests on the principle that nonmembers should not be required to fund a union’s political and ideological projects unless they choose to do so after having a “fair opportunity” to assess the impact of paying for nonchargeable union activities,” Alito wrote for the majority.
The SEIU argued that it had provided its regular annual notice, but the Court ruled that it needed to provide a new “Hudson notice” for this special assessment. Though the SEIU repaid the money taken in the assessment, the Court ruled that it still benefited from the loan.
“Public-sector unions have the right under the First Amendment to express their views on political and social issues without government interference,” Alito concluded. “But employees who choose not to join a union have the same rights. The First Amendment creates a forum in which all may seek, without hindrance or aid from the State, to move public opinion and achieve their political goals…Therefore, when a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh Hudson notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg offered a separate concurrence and Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justice Elena Kagan.
