Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

32  JANUS v. STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 

Opinion of the Court 

quately funded exclusive bargaining agent.”  573 U. S., at 
___ (KAGAN, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 7); see also post, at 
6–7  (KAGAN,  J.,  dissenting).    This  was  not  “the  interest 
Abood  recognized  and  protected,”  Harris,  supra,  at  ___ 
(slip op., at 7) (KAGAN, J., dissenting), and, in any event, it 
is insufficient. 

Although  the  dissent  would  accept  without  any  serious
independent  evaluation  the  State’s  assertion  that  the
absence  of  agency  fees  would  cripple  public-sector  unions
and  thus  impair  the  efficiency  of  government  operations, 
see  post,  at  8–9,  11,  ample  experience,  as  we  have  noted, 
supra, at 12, shows that this is questionable.

Especially in light of the more rigorous form of Pickering 
analysis that would apply in this context, see supra, at 23– 
25,  the  balance  tips  decisively  in  favor  of  the  employees’ 
free speech rights.23 

—————— 

23 Claiming  that  our  decision will  hobble  government  operations,  the 
dissent  asserts  that  it  would  prevent  a  government  employer  from 
taking  action  against  disruptive  non-unionized  employees  in  two 
carefully constructed hypothetical situations.  See post, at 17–18.  Both 
hypotheticals  are  short  on  potentially  important  details,  but  in  any
event,  neither  would  be  affected  by  our  decision  in  this  case.    Rather, 
both  would  simply  call  for  the  application  of  the  standard  Pickering 
test. 

In one of the hypotheticals, teachers “protest merit pay in the school
cafeteria.”  Post,  at  17.  If  such  a  case  actually  arose,  it  would  be  im­
portant  to  know,  among  other  things,  whether  the  teachers  involved 
were  supposed  to  be  teaching  in  their  classrooms  at  the  time  in  ques­
tion  and  whether  the  protest  occurred  in  the  presence  of  students 
during the student lunch period.  If both those conditions were met, the 
teachers would presumably be violating content-neutral rules regarding 
their  duty  to  teach  at  specified  times  and  places,  and  their  conduct
might well have a disruptive effect on the educational process.  Thus, in 
the  dissent’s  hypothetical,  the  school’s  interests  might  well  outweigh
those  of  the  teachers,  but  in  this  hypothetical  case,  as  in  all Pickering 
cases, the particular facts would be very important.

In the other hypothetical, employees agitate for a better health plan
“at various inopportune times and places.”  Post, at 17.  Here, the lack 
of  factual  detail  makes  it  impossible  to  evaluate  how  the  Pickering