Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 52

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

47 

Opinion of the Court 

factor supporting Abood.27 

* 

* 

* 
We  recognize  that  the  loss  of  payments  from  nonmem­
bers may cause unions to experience unpleasant transition 
costs  in  the  short  term,  and  may  require  unions  to  make 
adjustments in order to attract and retain members.  But 
we must  weigh these disadvantages against the consider­
able  windfall  that  unions  have  received  under  Abood  for 
the  past  41  years.    It  is  hard  to  estimate  how  many  bil­
lions  of  dollars  have  been  taken  from  nonmembers  and 
transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First
Amendment.  Those  unconstitutional  exactions  cannot  be 
allowed to continue indefinitely.

All  these  reasons—that  Abood’s  proponents  have  aban­
doned  its  reasoning,  that  the  precedent  has  proved  un­
workable,  that  it  conflicts  with  other  First  Amendment 
decisions, and that subsequent developments have eroded 
its  underpinnings—provide  the  “ ‘special  justification[s]’ ” 
for  overruling  Abood.  Post,  at  19  (KAGAN, J.,  dissenting) 
(quoting  Kimble  v.  Marvel  Entertainment,  LLC,  576  U. S.
 
___, ___ (2015) (slip op., at 8)).28
 

—————— 

27 The  dissent  emphasizes  another  type  of  reliance,  namely,  that
“[o]ver 20 States have by now enacted statutes authorizing [agency-fee]
provisions.”  Post, at 23.  But as we explained in Citizens United, “[t]his 
is not a compelling interest for stare decisis.  If it were, legislative acts 
could prevent us from overruling our own precedents, thereby interfer­
ing with our duty ‘to say what the law is.’ ”  558 U. S., at 365 (quoting 
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803)).  Nor does our decision 
“ ‘require  an  extensive  legislative  response.’ ”    Post,  at  23.  States  can 
keep  their  labor-relations  systems  exactly  as  they  are—only  they 
cannot  force  nonmembers  to  subsidize  public-sector  unions.   In  this 
way,  these  States  can  follow  the  model  of  the  federal  government  and
28 other States. 

28 Unfortunately,  the  dissent  sees  the  need  to  resort  to  accusations
that  we  are  acting  like  “black-robed  rulers”  who  have  shut  down  an
“energetic  policy  debate.”  Post,  at  27–28.    We  certainly  agree  that
judges  should  not  “overrid[e]  citizens’  choices”  or  “pick  the  winning