Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 43.0

10 

KNOX v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

icated on the assumption that a union’s allocation of funds 
for chargeable and nonchargeable purposes is not likely to 
vary  greatly  from  one  year  to  the  next,”  ante,  at  18;  that 
(Step  2)  this  assumption  does  not  apply  to  midyear  as-
sessments; hence (Step 3) what appears binding precedent 
(namely Hudson) does not bind the Court in its interpreta-
tion  of  the  Constitution  as  applied  to  those  assessments. 
Ibid. 

I  must  jump  this  logical  ship,  however,  at  Step  1.  I 
cannot  find  in  Hudson  the  “assumption”  of  uniform  ex-
penditures that the Court says underlies it.  The assump-
tion  does  not  appear  there  explicitly.    And  it  is  hard  to 
believe  any  such  assumption  could  implicitly  lurk  within
a  case  involving  a  union’s  political  expenditures.  Those 
expenditures  inevitably  vary  from  political  season  to 
season.  They  inevitably  depend  upon  the  number  and 
kind  of  union-related  matters  currently  visible  on  the
political  agenda.  Cf.,  e.g.,  App.  102,  158,  223  (union’s 
chargeability  proportion  varies  significantly  over  three 
years, from 56.35% in 2004, to 68.8% in 2005, to 60.3% in 
2006).  And it is hard to believe that the Members of this 
Court, when deciding Abood, were not fully aware of these 
obvious facts. 

B 
A  stronger  case  can  be  made  for  allowing  nonmember 
employees who did not object at the beginning of the dues
year  to  object  (for  the  first  time)  to  a  special  assessment. 
That  is  because,  unlike  the  nonmember  who  objected 
initially, the union will not permit that initially nonobject-
ing  nonmember  to  withhold  anything  from  the  special
assessment  fee.    Nonetheless,  there  are  powerful  reasons
not to allow the nonmember who did not object initially to 
the annual fee to object now for the first time to the mid-
year special assessment. 

For  one  thing,  insofar  as  a  new  objection  permits  the