Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 56.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

1 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 16–1466 
_________________ 

MARK JANUS, PETITIONER v. AMERICAN FEDER-
ATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL 

EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 27, 2018] 

JUSTICE  KAGAN,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GINSBURG, 
join,

JUSTICE  BREYER,  and  JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR 
dissenting. 

For over 40 years, Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 
209  (1977),  struck  a  stable  balance  between  public  em-
ployees’ First Amendment rights and government entities’ 
interests  in  running  their  workforces  as  they  thought 
proper.  Under  that  decision,  a  government  entity  could 
require  public  employees  to  pay  a  fair  share  of  the  cost 
that a union incurs when negotiating on their behalf over 
terms of employment.  But no part of that fair-share pay-
ment could go to any of the union’s political or ideological 
activities. 

That  holding  fit  comfortably  with  this  Court’s  general
framework for evaluating claims that a condition of public
employment  violates  the  First  Amendment.    The  Court’s 
decisions  have  long  made  plain  that  government  entities 
have  substantial  latitude  to  regulate  their  employees’ 
speech—especially  about  terms  of  employment—in  the
interest  of  operating  their  workplaces  effectively.    Abood 
allowed  governments  to  do  just  that.    While  protecting
public  employees’  expression  about  non-workplace  mat-
ters,  the  decision  enabled  a  government  to  advance  im-
portant managerial interests—by ensuring the presence of