Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 64

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

9 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

bilities  of  an  exclusive  representative—or,  in  the  worst 
case, to perform them at all.  The result is to frustrate the 
interests  of  every  government  entity  that  thinks  a  strong
exclusive-representation scheme will promote stable labor 
relations. 

Of course, not all public employers will share that view. 
Some  would  rather  not  bargain  with  an  exclusive  repre-
sentative.  Others  would  prefer  that  representative  to  be
poorly funded—to serve more as a front than an effectual 
bargaining partner.  But as reflected in the number of fair-
share statutes and contracts across the Nation, see supra,
at 2, many government entities think that effective exclu-
sive  representation  makes  for  good  labor  relations—and
recognize,  just  as  Abood  did,  that  representation  of  that
kind  often  depends  on  agency  fees.    See,  e.g.,  Harris,  573 
U. S.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  24)  (KAGAN,  J.,  dissenting)  (de-
scribing  why  Illinois  thought  that  bargaining  with  an 
adequately  funded  exclusive  representative  of  in-home 
caregivers  would  enable  the  State  to  better  serve  its  dis- 
abled citizens).  Abood respected that state interest; today’s
majority  fails  even  to  understand  it.    Little  wonder  that 
the  majority’s  First  Amendment  analysis,  which  involves
assessing  the  government’s  reasons  for  imposing  agency 
fees, also comes up short. 

B 
1 
In  many  cases  over  many  decades,  this  Court  has  ad-
dressed  how  the  First  Amendment  applies  when  the  gov-
ernment,  acting  not  as  sovereign  but  as  employer,  limits
its  workers’  speech.    Those  decisions  have  granted  sub-
stantial  latitude  to  the  government,  in  recognition  of  its
significant  interests  in  managing  its  workforce  so  as  to
best serve the public.  Abood fit neatly with that caselaw,
in  both  reasoning  and  result.  Indeed,  its  reversal  today
creates  a  significant  anomaly—an  exception,  applying  to