Mark Janus, an Illinois child‐​support specialist who was forced to pay fees to a public‐​sector union, is back at the Supreme Court to get his money back, with damages. Mark Janus pays about $45 each month to AFSCME Council 31 in Illinois. 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—the fees that unions charge non-members that are covered by collective bargaining agreements—violate those worker’s First Amendment right to free speech. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Mark Janus affects those who do not wish to financially support or join a union.

No one should be pressured or forced to pay union fees as a condition of working in public service. Unions will still be able to bargain with government entities over things like compensation, work conditions and benefits.

In 2018, in Janus v. AFSCME, the Supreme Court struck down compulsory union dues of public‐​sector employees as a violation the First Amendment. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center (funded by Rauner) recruited Janus to carry the case forward. This website (the “Site”) is provided for informational purposes only and the information and materials contained herein are not intended to and do not constitute legal advice or the formation of an attorney-client relationship. Unfortunately, lower courts have been reluctant to award damages for the wrongfully taken fees without explicit direction from the Supreme Court. Over a 20-year career in public service, this amounts to more than $10,000 in forced fees.

The issue involved may extend into an even greater number or cases, including those where public employees joined unions before Janus v. AFSCME, when it was not clear that their First Amendment rights would be protected if they chose not to join. The information provided on this Site may not apply to your particular facts or circumstances; accordingly, you should seek legal counsel concerning your particular issues from a licensed attorney. Learn more about Mark Janus and find answers to other questions about Janus v. AFSCME. The case was settled in a 5–4 vote with Neil Gorsuch casting the deciding vote.

The Janus decision not only affected unions, it will have a ripple effect on the politicians, institutions and other interests that unions traditionally support. Right now, government workers like Mark Janus – workers who are not union members – are forced to pay for representation they don’t necessarily want. Courts in other circuits have held that it applies, however, possibly because they worried it would be inequitable to make certain unions offer restitutions while other unions are not required to do so. Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Requiring employees to financially support a union whose politics and policies they disagree with as a condition of employment is a violation of their First Amendment rights. Receive periodic updates on Cato research, events, Washington, DC 20001-5403, Taking a Hard Look at DHS v. Regents of the University of California, There’s More to Educational Freedom Than the, The Supreme Court Is Not Debating Your “Humanity”, Creative After Janus won at the Supreme Court, his case was remanded to the lower courts.
The fees for some unions are much higher. Please be advised that if you submit information to us via this Site, no attorney-client relationship is created, and any such communications are not considered confidential. As most of these cases are still pending before the circuit courts, this is an issue the Supreme Court should resolve.

As a Washington Examiner headline summarizes, “Extending [the] Supreme Court’s Janus decision to private-sector unions [would be an] uphill battle.”[4] In the article, Harvard University labor professor Benjamin Sachs notes that Supreme Court precedent [interpretation of the Constitution] “is generally held to apply to things the government does, not things that private-sector employers do.” 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. Anyone who wants to be in a union and pay money to a government union can do so.

The plaintiff in the case was Mark Janus, a child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. The question being asked isn’t an indictment of unions, it’s about people.
This case is about First Amendment rights and whether government employees can be required to sacrifice theirs. Pay up – or find another job.

Like everyone else in the labor movement, I’m nervously awaiting the Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, which would weaken public sector unions by letting workers receive the benefits of representation without contributing toward the cost. Mandatory union agency fees can get expensive, especially for underpaid teachers and other civil servants. The decision, Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, involved a public employee, Mark Janus, who declined to join a union but was nevertheless required under a union contract to pay union fees, sometimes referred to as “agency fees” or “fair share fees.” For years, these compulsory union fees were considered legal. The Court should grant review and overturn the Seventh Circuits in order to correct this injustice. Imagine having to pay a middle man to go to work. The majority opinion rejected the stare decisis principles (precedent) set by Abood, stating the decision was “poorly reasoned” and that “the 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.”[1] In a dissenting opinion, Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, “faulted the Majority for upsetting the balance that Abood brought to public-sector labor relations, and for disregarding stare decisis principles.”[2] Justice Kagan argued that “The balance Abood struck between public employers’ interests and public employees’ expression is right at home in First Amendment doctrine.”[3] 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. That's the situation for more than 5 million government workers in 22 states. If unions do not want to exclusively represent all government workers, they can lobby for legislation to represent only dues-paying members. and publications. The fees for some unions are much higher. June 27—Today the US Supreme Court released a landmark decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, Country, and Municipal Employees, Council 31. The union countered that if employees didn’t pay agency fees, they would gain an unfair benefit—essentially, a free ride.

Government employees’ only options if they don’t want to fund a union at their workplace is to quit and find another job or move to a right-to-work state. As The New York Times noted, the Janus decision will also impact “a vast network of groups dedicated to advancing liberal policies and candidates.”[7] 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. Mark Janus is an average guy.

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 “people power” of union members and other voters. Mark …

He just believes he should be able to keep his job and serve his community without being forced to support politics with which he disagrees. 1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW

Cato Institute In 2018, in Janus v. AFSCME, the Supreme Court struck down compulsory union dues of public‐​sector employees as a violation the First Amendment.

An Illinois resident, father, employee of the state and active participant in his community.

If the Court does not resolve this issue, public‐​sector actors will know they can take actions which may infringe free speech without fear that they will need to make restitution if citizens’ First Amendment rights are vindicated. 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—the fees that unions charge non-members that are covered by collective bargaining agreements—violate those worker’s First Amendment right to free speech.

Collective bargaining is inherently political. Now on petition to the Supreme Court, Cato has joined the Goldwater Institute and the Mackinac Center on an amicus brief urging the Court to take the case. The Court ruled in favor of plaintiff Mark Janus, a child support specialist who works for Health Care & Family Services, returning First Amendment rights to public sector workers. Unions were engaged in contingency planning—internally and with their stakeholder groups—well in advance of the Supreme Court decision.

And those groups don’t dispute that fact. StandWithWorkers.org is operated by the Liberty Justice Center. Janus’ position was that the activities “agency fees” pay for are inherently political and support union policies he doesn’t agree with. There is a lot of misinformation surrounding the Janus 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’s fund-raising capacity to partially offset the loss of financial support. For perspective, Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that the union membership rate of public-sector workers is approximately 34%—over five times the percent of private-sector workers.