Abood v. Detroit Board of Education The
National Labor Relations Act of 1935 authorized
trade unions in the private sector to be established to represent employees in
collective bargaining for wages and other benefits from employers. Frequently, unions also engage in political activity to support their goals by donating to political campaigns. These activities are paid for through fees and
dues collected from its members. Some unions are also able to collect fees from non-members in the same workplace through
agency shop or union equity agreements. For unions within the
public sector (unions that include members working for state and local governments), which are governed by individual state laws, the use of such agreements had been previously allowed by the Supreme Court in
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, , which determined that as long as such dues collected from non-members were used only for the union's purposes of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment, it did not violate the non-members'
First Amendment rights. It was also determined in
Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild Inc., , that private-sector unions have a duty of fair representation to all workers in a bargaining unit under the National Labor Relations Act, and that unions were allowed to negotiate agreements which state that "membership" was required as a condition of continued employment, even though the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 had outlawed agreements requiring formal union membership. About 22 states have unions with these
collective agreements in place that apply to their public sector workers.
Procedural history The immediate case began in 2015 when newly elected
Illinois governor
Bruce Rauner took office. Rauner had run on an anti-union platform, and once in office, he issued an executive order that suspended collection of agency fees from non-union members who benefitted from a contract negotiated by the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which represented Illinois public sector employees. Rauner also preemptively filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the AFSCME to challenge agency shop agreements as unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment. (Case 15-C-1235). Rauner used the decision from
Harris to support these actions, arguing that agency-shop agreements violate nonmembers' right to free speech. In Rauner's federal case, the unions sought to dismiss the case, claiming he
had no standing. In May 2015, the District Court judge found that Rauner lacked sufficient standing to issue the challenge, as he had "no personal interest at stake." Three state employees attempted to join the suit as co-plaintiffs, but the judge denied this order. Instead, the judge allowed the case to continue with the three employees as the sole plaintiffs. These employees included Mark Janus, an Illinois
child support specialist, who had contested the fees. Under Illinois law, state government can require its employees to pay fees to a government union as a condition of employment. In March 2015, the three government employees represented by attorneys from the Illinois-based
Liberty Justice Center and Virginia-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation took legal action to intervene in the case. In May 2015, after Rauner was dropped from the case, it proceeded under the name
Janus v. AFSCME. Meanwhile, the case of ''
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass'n, , had been working its way to the Supreme Court, which dealt with a similar complaint. In July 2015, after Friedrichs
had been issued certiorari by the Supreme Court, the Illinois suit was put on hold pending Friedrichs''. The Supreme Court heard the case, which challenged the Ninth's Circuit's decision affirming
Abood. Before the Court could issue the decision, however, Justice
Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, and the case was decided 4–4, leaving in place the Ninth Circuit decision. On appeal in May 2017, the
Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling to dismiss the case on the basis of
Abood. (16-3638). == Supreme Court ==