Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

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

3 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

nonmembers’ constitutional right not to support “‘ideological 
causes  not  germane  to  [the  union’s]  duties  as  collective-
bargaining  agent.’ ”  Id.,  at  294  (quoting  Ellis  v.  Railway 
Clerks, 466 U. S. 435, 447 (1984)).  See also Keller v. State 
Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1, 17 (1990) (explaining that Hudson 
“outlined  a  minimum  set  of  procedures  by  which  a  union 
in an agency-shop relationship could meet its requirement
under Abood”).  The Court, in my view, should not depart,
or create an exception, from Hudson’s framework here. 

II 
Because  the  administrative  details  of  the  fee  collection 
process  are  critical,  I  shall  begin  by  explaining  how  I  un-
derstand  that  process  to  work.    The  union  here  followed 
a  basic  administrative  system  that  ensures  that  the 
fee  charged  to  objecting  nonmembers  matches  their  pro 
rata  share  of  the  union’s  chargeable  expenditures,  but  it 
achieves  that  match  only  over  a  period  of  several  years. 
At  the  end  of  2004,  independent  auditors  determined  the
amount  of  chargeable  (e.g.,  collective-bargaining  related)
expenditures and the amount of nonchargeable (e.g., non-
germane  political)  expenditures  that  the  union  ac-
tually made during 2004.  The union then used the resulting 
proportion  (which  was  about  56%  chargeable,  44%  non-
chargeable)  as  the  basis  for  apportioning  the  next  year’s
dues.  Thus  in  June  2005,  the  union  sent  all  represented 
employees a Hudson notice setting forth that (roughly) 56 
to 44 figure.  App. 96–106.  It provided time for nonmem-
bers to object or to challenge the figure or underlying data. 
Id., at 98–104.  And it then applied the resulting figure to
determine  the  percentage  of  the  total  fee  that  objecting
nonmembers  would  have  to  pay  during  the  next  fee-year,
which  ran  from  July  2005  to  June  2006.    Id.,  at  102.  At 
the  end  of  2005,  auditors  again  examined  the  union’s
actual  expenditures  made  during  2005.  And  the  union 
then  used  those  newly  audited  figures  to  determine  the