Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 41

36  JANUS v. STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 

Opinion of the Court 

arises  when  a  State  requires  its  employees  to  pay  agency 
fees.  See Harris, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 17). 
  Moreover,  neither  Hanson  nor  Street  gave  careful  con­
sideration  to  the  First  Amendment.    In  Hanson,  the  pri­
mary questions were whether Congress exceeded its power
under  the  Commerce  Clause  or  violated  substantive  due 
process  by  authorizing  private  union-shop  arrangements
under the Commerce and Due Process Clauses.  351 U. S., 
at  233–235.  After  deciding  those  questions,  the  Court 
summarily  dismissed  what  was  essentially  a  facial  First 
Amendment  challenge,  noting  that  the  record  did  not
substantiate  the  challengers’  claim.  Id.,  at  238;  see  Har-
ris, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 17).  For its part, Street was 
decided  as  a  matter  of  statutory  construction,  and  so  did 
not reach any constitutional issue.  367 U. S., at 749–750, 
768–769.  Abood  nevertheless  took  the  view  that  Hanson 
and  Street  “all  but  decided”  the  important  free  speech
issue that was before the Court.  Harris, 573 U. S., at ___ 
(slip  op.,  at  17).  As  we  said  in  Harris,  “[s]urely  a  First 
Amendment  issue  of  this  importance  deserved  better
treatment.”  Ibid. 

Abood’s  unwarranted  reliance  on  Hanson  and  Street 
appears  to  have  contributed  to  another  mistake:  Abood 
judged  the  constitutionality  of  public-sector  agency  fees
under a deferential standard that finds no support in our 
free  speech  cases. 
(As  noted,  supra,  at  10–11,  today’s
dissent makes the same fundamental mistake.)  Abood did 
not  independently  evaluate  the  strength  of  the  govern­
ment  interests  that  were  said  to  support  the  challenged
agency-fee provision; nor did it ask how well that provision
actually  promoted  those  interests  or  whether  they  could 
have been adequately served without impinging so heavily 
on  the  free  speech  rights  of  nonmembers.  Rather,  Abood 
followed Hanson and Street, which it interpreted as having 
deferred  to  “the  legislative  assessment  of  the  important
contribution of the union shop to the system of labor rela­