Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2017 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

JANUS v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, 

COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,
 
COUNCIL 31, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 16–1466.  Argued February 26, 2018—Decided June 27, 2018 

Illinois  law  permits  public  employees  to  unionize.    If  a  majority  of  the 
employees  in  a  bargaining  unit  vote  to  be  represented  by  a  union, 
that  union  is  designated  as  the  exclusive  representative  of  all  the 
employees,  even  those  who do  not  join.   Only  the  union  may  engage
in collective bargaining; individual employees may not be represented 
by  another  agent  or  negotiate  directly  with  their  employer.    Non-
members are required to pay what is generally called an “agency fee,” 
i.e., a percentage of the full union dues.  Under Abood v. Detroit Bd. 
of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, 235–236, this fee may cover union expenditures 
attributable  to  those  activities  “germane”  to  the  union’s  collective-
bargaining  activities  (chargeable  expenditures),  but  may  not  cover
the union’s political and ideological projects (nonchargeable expendi-
tures).  The union sets the agency fee annually and then sends non-
members a notice explaining the basis for the fee and the breakdown 
of expenditures.  Here it was 78.06% of full union dues. 

Petitioner Mark Janus is a state employee whose unit is represent-
ed  by  a  public-sector  union  (Union),  one  of  the  respondents.    He  re-
fused to join the Union because he opposes many of its positions, in-
cluding  those  taken  in  collective  bargaining.    Illinois’  Governor, 
similarly  opposed  to  many  of  these  positions,  filed  suit  challenging 
the  constitutionality  of  the  state  law  authorizing  agency  fees.    The 
state attorney general, another respondent, intervened to defend the
law,  while  Janus  moved  to  intervene  on  the  Governor’s  side.  The 
District  Court  dismissed  the  Governor’s  challenge  for  lack  of  stand-
ing,  but  it  simultaneously  allowed  Janus  to  file  his  own  complaint 
challenging  the  constitutionality  of  agency  fees.    The  District  Court