Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

2 

KNOX v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

Opinion of the Court 

307,  n.  20  (1986).  See  also  Davenport  v.  Washington  Ed. 
Assn.,  551  U. S.  177,  181  (2007)  (“[A]gency-shop  arrange-
ments  in  the  public  sector  raise  First  Amendment  con-
cerns  because  they  force  individuals  to  contribute  money
to  unions  as  a  condition  of  government  employment”); 
Street,  supra,  at  749  (union  shop  presents  First  Amend-
ment “questions of the utmost gravity”).  Thus, in Abood v. 
Detroit  Bd.  of  Ed.,  431  U. S.  209  (1977),  we  held  that  a
public-sector  union,  while  permitted  to  bill  nonmembers
for  chargeable  expenses,  may  not  require  nonmembers  to
fund its political and ideological projects.  And in Hudson, 
we  identified  procedural  requirements  that  a  union  must 
meet  in  order  to  collect  fees  from  nonmembers  without 
violating  their  rights.  475  U. S.,  at  302–311.    The  First 
Amendment,  we  held,  does  not  permit  a  public-sector
union to adopt procedures that have the effect of requiring 
objecting nonmembers to lend the union money to be used 
for  political,  ideological,  and  other  purposes  not  germane
to  collective  bargaining.  Id.,  at  305.  In  the  interest  of 
administrative  convenience,  however,  we  concluded  that 
a  union  “cannot  be  faulted”  for  calculating  the  fee  that 
nonmembers must pay “on the basis of its expenses during 
the preceding year.”  Id., at 307, n. 18. 

Hudson  concerned  a  union’s  regular  annual  fees.    The 
present  case,  by  contrast,  concerns  the  First  Amendment
requirements  applicable  to  a  special  assessment  or  dues
increase  that  is  levied  to  meet  expenses  that  were  not 
disclosed when the amount of the regular assessment was 
set. 

B 
In June 2005, respondent, the Service Employees Inter-
national  Union,  Local  1000  (SEIU),  sent  out  its  regular 
Hudson  notice  informing  employees  what  the  agency  fee 
would be for the year ahead.  The notice set monthly dues 
at  1%  of  an  employee’s  gross  monthly  salary  but  capped