Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 28

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

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

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  SOTOMAYOR,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GINSBURG 

joins, concurring in the judgment. 

When  a  public-sector  union  imposes  a  special  assess-
ment intended to fund solely political lobbying efforts, the 
First  Amendment  requires  that  the  union  provide  non-
members  an  opportunity  to  opt  out  of  the  contribution  of
funds.  I therefore concur in the Court’s judgment.

I  concur  only  in  the  judgment,  however,  because  I  can-
not agree with the majority’s decision to address unneces-
sarily  significant  constitutional  issues  well  outside  the
scope of the questions presented and briefing.  By doing so, 
the majority breaks our own rules and, more importantly, 
disregards  principles  of  judicial  restraint  that  define  the
Court’s proper role in our system of separated powers. 

I 
The Political Fight-Back Fund was to be used by Service
Employees  International  Union,  Local  1000  (SEIU),  “spe-
cifically  in  the  political  arenas  of  California”  to  defeat
perceived antiunion initiatives and to elect a sympathetic
Governor and legislature.  App. 25; see also id., at 31.  As 
the  majority  explains,  such  political  efforts  are  not  “ger-
mane”  to  the  union’s  function  as  a  bargaining  represent-
ative,  and  accordingly  are  not  chargeable  to  objecting 
nonmembers.  See Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn., 500 U. S.