Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

KNOX v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

Syllabus 

vision and radio advertising, direct mail, voter registration, voter ed-
ucation,  and  get  out  the  vote  activities  in  our  work  sites  and  in  our
communities across California.”  Nonunion employees were not given 
any choice as to whether they would pay into the fund.

Petitioners,  on  behalf  of  nonunion  employees  who  paid  into  the 
fund,  brought  a  class  action  against  the  SEIU  alleging  violation  of
their  First  Amendment  rights.    The  Federal  District  Court  granted 
petitioners  summary  judgment.    Ruling  that  the  special  assessment
was for entirely political purposes, it ordered the SEIU to send a new 
notice  giving  class  members  45  days  to  object  and  to  provide  those 
who object a full refund of contributions to the fund.  The Ninth Cir-
cuit  reversed,  concluding  that  Hudson  prescribed  a  balancing  test
under  which  the  proper  inquiry  is  whether  the  SEIU’s  procedures 
reasonably  accommodated  the  interests  of  the  union,  the  employer, 
and the nonmember employees. 

Held: 

1. This case is not moot.  Although the SEIU offered a full refund to
all class members after certiorari was granted, a live controversy re-
mains.  The voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not ordi-
narily render a case moot because that conduct could be resumed as 
soon as the case is dismissed.  See City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Cas-
tle, Inc., 455 U. S. 283, 289.  Since the SEIU continues to defend the 
fund’s legality, it would not necessarily refrain from collecting similar 
fees  in  the  future.  Even  if  concerns  about  voluntary  cessation  were 
inapplicable because petitioners did not seek prospective relief, there
would still be a live controversy as to the adequacy of the refund no-
tice the SEIU sent pursuant to the District Court’s order.  Pp. 6−8. 

2. Under the First Amendment, when a union imposes a special as-
sessment or dues increase levied to meet expenses that were not dis-
closed when the regular assessment was set, it must provide a fresh 
notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their
affirmative consent.  Pp. 8−23. 

(a) A  close  connection  exists  between  this  Nation’s  commitment
to self-government and the rights protected by the First Amendment, 
see,  e.g.,  Brown  v.  Hartlage,  456  U. S.  45,  52−53,  which  creates  “an 
open marketplace” in which differing ideas about political, economic, 
and  social  issues  can  compete  freely  for  public  acceptance  without
improper government interference, New York State Bd. of Elections v. 
Lopez  Torres,  552  U. S  196,  202.    The  government  may  not  prohibit
the  dissemination  of  ideas  it  disfavors,  nor  compel  the  endorsement 
of ideas that it approves.  See, e.g., R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 
382.  And  the  ability  of  like-minded  individuals  to  associate  for  the
purpose  of  expressing  commonly  held  views  may  not  be  curtailed.
See, e.g., Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 623.  Close-