Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

a  nonmember  cannot  make  an  informed  choice  about  a 
special assessment or dues increase that is unknown when
the  annual  notice  is  sent.    When  a  union  levies  a  special 
assessment or raises dues as a result of unexpected devel-
opments,  the  factors  influencing  a  nonmember’s  choice
may change.  In particular, a nonmember may take special
exception  to  the  uses  for  which  the  additional  funds  are
sought.4 

The  present  case  provides  a  striking  example.    The 
special  assessment  in  this  case  was  billed  for  use  in  a 
broad electoral campaign designed to defeat two important
and  controversial  ballot  initiatives  and  to  elect  sympa-
thetic candidates in the 2006 gubernatorial and legislative 
elections.  There  were  undoubtedly  nonmembers  who,  for 
one reason or another, chose not to opt out or neglected to 
do so when the standard Hudson notice was sent but who 
took strong exception to the SEIU’s political objectives and 
did  not  want  to  subsidize  those  efforts.    These  nonmem-
bers  might  have  favored  one  or  both  of  the  ballot  initia-
tives; they might have wished to support the reelection of
the  incumbent  Governor;  or  they  might  not  have  wanted
to  delegate  to  the  union  the  authority  to  decide  which 
candidates  in  the  2006  elections  would  receive  a  share  of 
their money.

The  effect  on  nonmembers  was  particularly  striking
with  respect  to  the  union’s  campaign  against  Proposition 
75  because  that  initiative  would  have  bolstered  nonmem-
ber  rights.    If  Proposition  75  had  passed,  nonmembers
would  have  been  exempt  from  paying  for  the  SEIU’s  ex-
tensive  political  projects  unless  they  affirmatively  con-

—————— 

4 The  dissent  suggests  that  the  union  gave  fair  notice  because  it  an-
nounced at the beginning of the year that “ ‘[d]ues are subject to change 
without  further  notice  to  fee  payers.’ ”    Post, at  12  (opinion  of  BREYER, 
J.).    But  a  union  cannot  define  the  scope  of  its  own  notice  obligations
simply by promulgating a clause giving itself the power to increase fees 
at any time for any purpose without further notice.