Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 74

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

19 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

and acceded to those interests—just as Abood did. 

The  key  point  about  Abood  is  that  it  fit  naturally  with
this Court’s consistent teaching about the permissibility of 
regulating  public  employees’  speech.    The  Court  allows  a 
government  entity  to  regulate  that  expression  in  aid  of
managing  its  workforce  to  effectively  provide  public  ser-
vices.  That is just what a government aims to do when it
enforces  a  fair-share  agreement.    And  so,  the  key  point 
about today’s decision is that it creates an unjustified hole 
in the law, applicable to union fees alone.  This case is sui 
generis among those addressing public employee speech—
and will almost surely remain so. 

III 
But  the  worse  part  of  today’s  opinion  is  where  the  ma-
jority  subverts  all  known  principles  of  stare  decisis.  The 
majority makes plain, in the first 33 pages of its decision, 
that it believes Abood was wrong.4  But even if that were 
true  (which  it  is  not),  it  is  not  enough.    “Respecting  stare 
decisis  means  sticking  to  some  wrong  decisions.”    Kimble 
v.  Marvel  Entertainment,  LLC,  576  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2015) 
(slip  op.,  at  7).  Any  departure  from  settled  precedent  (so 
the  Court  has  often  stated)  demands  a  “special  justifica-
tion—over  and  above  the  belief  that  the  precedent  was
wrongly decided.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 8) (internal quo-
tation  marks  omitted);  see,  e.g.,  Arizona  v.  Rumsey,  467 
U. S.  203,  212  (1984).    And  the  majority  does  not  have 
anything close.  To the contrary: all that is “special” in this
case—especially  the  massive  reliance  interests  at  stake—
demands  retaining  Abood,  beyond  even  the  normal 
precedent.

Consider first why these principles about precedent are
so  important.  Stare  decisis—“the  idea  that  today’s  Court 
—————— 

4 And  then,  after  ostensibly  turning  to  stare  decisis,  the  majority 
spends  another  four  pages  insisting  that  Abood  was  “not  well  rea-
soned,” which is just more of the same.  Ante, at 38; see ante, at 35–38.