Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2011 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

KNOX ET AL. v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 10–1121.  Argued January 10, 2012—Decided June 21, 2012 

California  law permits public-sector employees in a bargaining unit to 
decide  by  majority  vote  to  create  an  “agency  shop”  arrangement  un-
der  which  all  the  employees  are  represented  by  a  union.    Even  em-
ployees  who  do  not  join  the  union  must  pay  an  annual  fee  for 
“chargeable expenses,” i.e., the cost of nonpolitical union services re-
lated to collective bargaining.  Under Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 
U. S.  209,  a  public-sector  union  can  bill  nonmembers  for  chargeable
expenses but may not require them to fund its political or ideological
projects.  Teachers  v.  Hudson,  475  U. S.  292,  302–311,  sets  out  re-
quirements  that  a  union  must  meet  in  order  to  collect  regular  fees
from nonmembers without violating their rights. 

In  June  2005,  respondent,  a  public-sector  union  (SEIU),  sent  to
California  employees  its  annual  Hudson  notice,  setting  and  capping
monthly dues and estimating that 56.35% of its total expenditures in 
the coming year would be chargeable expenses.  A nonmember had 30 
days to object to full payment of dues but would still have to pay the 
chargeable portion.  The notice stated that the fee was subject to in-
crease without further notice.  That same month, the Governor called 
for a special election on, inter alia, two ballot propositions opposed by 
the SEIU.  After the 30-day objection period ended, the SEIU sent a 
letter  to  unit  employees  announcing  a  temporary  25%  increase  in
dues  and  a  temporary  elimination  of  the  monthly  dues  cap,  billing
the move as an “Emergency Temporary Assessment to Build a Politi-
cal  Fight-Back  Fund.”    The  purpose  of  the  fund  was  to  help  achieve
the  union’s  political  objectives  in  the  special  election  and  in  the  up-
coming  November  2006  election.    The  union  noted  that  the  fund 
would be used “for a broad range of political expenses, including tele-