Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  567 U. S. ____ (2012) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington,  D. C.  20543,  of  any  typographical  or  other  formal  errors,  in  order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 10–1121 
_________________ 

DIANNE KNOX, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SERVICE EM- 
PLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 21, 2012] 

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. 
In  this  case,  we  decide  whether  the  First  Amendment 
allows a public-sector union to require objecting nonmem-
bers  to  pay  a  special  fee  for  the  purpose  of  financing  the 
union’s political and ideological activities. 

I 

A 

Under  California  law,  public-sector  employees  in  a 
bargaining  unit  may  decide  by  majority  vote  to  create  an
“agency shop” arrangement under which all the employees
are represented by a union selected by the majority.  Cal. 
Govt. Code Ann. §3502.5(a) (West 2010).  While employees
in  the  unit  are  not  required  to  join  the  union,  they  must
nevertheless pay the union an annual fee to cover the cost 
of union services related to collective bargaining (so-called 
chargeable expenses).  See Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn., 
500  U. S.  507,  524  (1991);  Machinists  v.  Street,  367  U. S. 
740, 760 (1961).

Our prior cases have recognized that such arrangements
represent  an  “impingement”  on  the  First  Amendment
rights of nonmembers.  Teachers v. Hudson, 475 U. S. 292,