Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 9

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

After  receiving  this  letter,  one  of  the  plaintiffs  in  this
case  called  the  SEIU’s  offices  to  complain  that  the  union
was  levying  the  special  assessment  for  political  purposes 
without  giving  employees  a  fair  opportunity  to  object. 
An  SEIU  area  manager  responded  that  “even  if  [the  em-
ployee]  objected  to  the  payment  of  the  full  agency  fee,  there 
was nothing he could do about the September increase for 
the Assessment.”  Knox v. Westly, No. 2:05–cv–02198, 2008 
WL 850128, *3 (ED Cal., Mar. 28, 2008).  “She also stated 
that ‘we are in the fight of our lives,’ that the Assessment 
was  needed,  and  that  there  was  nothing  that  could  be
done  to  stop  the  Union’s  expenditure  of  that  Assessment 
for  political  purposes.”  Ibid.   As  a  consolation,  however, 
those  employees  who  had  filed  timely  objections  after  the
regular  June  Hudson  notice  were  required  to  pay  only
56.35% of the temporary increase.

Petitioners filed this class-action suit on behalf of 28,000 
nonunion employees who were forced to contribute money
to the Political Fight-Back Fund.  Some of the class mem-
bers had filed timely objections after receiving the regular 
Hudson  notice  in  June,  and  others  had  not.  Those  who 
had objected argued that it was wrong to require them to
pay 56.35% of the temporary assessment, which had been 
billed as intended for use in making political expenditures
that they found objectionable.  Those who had not objected
after  receiving  the  June  Hudson  notice  contended  that 
they  should  have  received  a  new  opportunity  to  object
when the SEIU levied the special assessment for its Politi-
cal Fight-Back Fund.

The  District  Court  granted  summary  judgment  for  the
petitioners,  finding  that  the  union  “fully  intended  to  use
the 12 million additional dollars it anticipated to raise for
political  purposes.”    2008  WL  850128,  *7.  “Even  if  every
cent  of  the  assessment  was  not  intended  to  be  used  for 
entirely  political  purposes,”  the  court  stated,  “it  is  clear 
that  the  Union’s  intent  was  to  depart  drastically  from  its