Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 78

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

23 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

decision  would  then  “require  an  extensive  legislative
response”  or  “dislodge  settled  rights  and  expectations.” 
Ibid.  Both  will  happen  here:  The  Court  today  wreaks 
havoc 
contractual 
arrangements.

legislative  and 

entrenched 

on 

Over  20  States  have  by  now  enacted  statutes  authoriz-
ing  fair-share  provisions.  To  be  precise,  22  States,  the 
District  of  Columbia,  and  Puerto  Rico—plus  another  two
States  for  police  and  firefighter  unions.    Many  of  those
States have multiple statutory provisions, with variations 
for different categories of public employees.  See, e.g., Brief 
for State of California as Amicus Curiae 24–25.  Every one
of  them  will  now  need  to  come  up  with  new  ways—
elaborated  in  new  statutes—to  structure  relations  be-
tween  government  employers  and  their  workers.    The 
majority responds, in a footnote no less, that this is of no 
proper concern to the Court.  See ante, at 47, n. 27.  But in 
fact,  we  have  weighed  heavily  against  “abandon[ing]  our 
settled jurisprudence” that “[s]tate legislatures have relied 
upon” it and would have to “reexamine [and amend] their
statutes” if it were overruled.  Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Direc-
tor, Div. of Taxation, 504 U. S. 768, 785 (1992); Hilton, 502 
U. S., at 203. 

Still  more,  thousands  of  current  contracts  covering
millions of workers provide for agency fees.  Usually, this
Court  recognizes  that  “[c]onsiderations  in  favor  of  stare 
decisis  are  at  their  acme  in  cases  involving  property  and
contract rights.”  Payne, 501 U. S., at 828.  Not today.  The 
majority undoes bargains reached all over the country.5  It 
prevents  the  parties  from  fulfilling  other  commitments 
they have made based on those agreements.  It forces the 

—————— 

5 Indeed,  some  agency-fee  provisions,  if  canceled,  could  bring  down
entire contracts because they lack severability clauses.  See ante, at 46 
(noting  that  unions  could  have  negotiated  for  that  result);  Brief  for 
Governor Tom Wolf et al. as Amici Curiae 11.