Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 46.0

Cite as:  567 U. S. ____ (2012) 

13 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

all,  the  possibility  of  a  special  assessment  is  known  in 
advance; the possibility that some, or all of it, will help the 
union  make  political  expenditures  is  known  in  advance;
the fact that the union will spend a significant amount of 
ordinary dues upon political matters is known in advance. 
To  obtain  protection  all  a  nonmember  who  believes  he
might object to some future political expenditure has to do
is  to  object  in  advance.  His  or  her  fees  will  decline  from 
the  beginning.  And,  if  the  nonmember  forgets  to  object,
there is always next year—when the chargeable amount of 
the fee will be based on this year’s actual expenditures.

Given  these  considerations,  I  do  not  believe  the  First 
Amendment  requires  giving  a  second  objection  opportu-
nity to those nonmembers who did not object the first time. 

IV 
The  Court  also  holds  that,  “when  a  public-sector  union
imposes  a  special  assessment  or  dues  increase,”  it  “may 
not  exact  any  funds  from  nonmembers  without  their  af-
firmative consent.”  Ante, at 22.  In other words, the Court 
mandates an “opt-in” system in respect to the payment of
special assessments.

JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR’s  concurring  opinion  explains  why 
the Court is wrong to impose this requirement.  See ante, 
at  2–6  (opinion  concurring  in  judgment).  It  runs  directly 
contrary to precedent.  No party asked that we do so.  The 
matter  has  not  been  fully  argued  in  this  Court  or  in  the 
courts below.  I agree with her about this matter.

The  decision  is  particularly  unfortunate  given  the  fact
that each reason the Court offers in support of its “opt-in”
conclusion  seems  in  logic  to  apply,  not  just  to  special  as-
sessments, but to ordinary yearly fee charges as well.  At 
least,  its  opinion  can  be  so  read.    And  that  fact  virtually
guarantees  that  the  opinion  will  play  a  central  role  in  an
ongoing, intense political debate.

The  debate  is  generally  about  whether,  the  extent  to