Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 11

6  JANUS v. STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 

Opinion of the Court 

Janus  then  sought  review  in  this  Court,  asking  us  to
overrule  Abood  and  hold  that  public-sector  agency-fee 
arrangements are unconstitutional.  We granted certiorari 
to consider this important question.  582 U. S. ___ (2017). 

II 

Before  reaching  this  question,  however,  we  must  con- 
sider a threshold issue.  Respondents contend that the Dis- 
trict  Court  lacked  jurisdiction  under  Article  III  of  the
Constitution  because  petitioner  “moved  to  intervene  in
[the Governor’s] jurisdictionally defective lawsuit.”  Union 
Brief in Opposition 11; see also id., at 13–17; State Brief in 
Opposition  6;  Brief  for  Union  Respondent  i,  16–17;  Brief 
for  State  Respondents  14,  n.  1.  This  argument  is  clearly 
wrong.

It rests on the faulty premise that petitioner intervened
in  the  action  brought  by  the  Governor,  but  that  is  not
what happened.  The District Court did not grant petition­
er’s motion to intervene in that lawsuit.  Instead, the court 
essentially  treated  petitioner’s  amended  complaint  as  the 
operative complaint in a new lawsuit.  App. 110–112.  And 
when the case is viewed in that way, any Article III issue
vanishes.  As  the  District  Court  recognized—and  as  re­
spondents  concede—petitioner  was  injured  in  fact  by 
Illinois’  agency-fee  scheme,  and  his  injuries  can  be  re­
dressed  by  a  favorable  court  decision.    Ibid.;  see  Record 
2312–2313,  2322–2323.  Therefore,  he  clearly  has  Article 
III standing.  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 
560–561 (1992).  It is true that the District Court docketed 
petitioner’s  complaint  under  the  number  originally  as­
signed  to  the  Governor’s  complaint,  instead  of  giving  it  a
new  number  of  its  own.    But  Article  III  jurisdiction  does
not turn on such trivialities. 

The  sole  decision  on  which  respondents  rely,  United 
States  ex  rel.  Texas  Portland  Cement  Co.  v.  McCord,  233 
U. S. 157 (1914), actually works against them.  That case