Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 45.0

40  JANUS v. STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 

Opinion of the Court 

agree 

Abood’s 

Respondents 

chargeable-
that 
nonchargeable  line  suffers  from  “a  vagueness  problem,” 
that  it  sometimes  “allows  what  it  shouldn’t  allow,”  and 
that  “a  firm[er]  line  c[ould]  be  drawn.”    Tr.  of  Oral  Arg. 
47–48.  They  therefore  argue  that  we  should  “consider
revisiting”  this  part  of  Abood.  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  66;  see 
Brief  for  Union  Respondent  46–47;  Brief  for  State  Re­
spondents  30.  This  concession  only  underscores  the  real- 
ity that  Abood has proved unworkable: Not even the par­
ties  defending  agency  fees  support  the  line  that  it  has 
taken this Court over 40 years to draw. 

2 

Objecting employees also face a daunting and expensive 

task  if  they  wish  to  challenge  union  chargeability  deter­
minations.  While  Hudson  requires  a  union  to  provide 
nonmembers  with  “sufficient  information  to  gauge  the
propriety of the union’s fee,” 475 U. S., at 306, the Hudson 
notice  in  the  present  case  and  in  others  that  have  come
before  us  do  not  begin  to  permit  a  nonmember  to  make
such a determination. 

In  this  case,  the  notice  lists  categories  of  expenses  and
sets  out  the  amount  in  each  category  that  is  said  to  be
attributable  to  chargeable  and  nonchargeable  expenses.
Here are some examples regarding the Union respondent’s
expenditures: