Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 82

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

27 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

with this Court’s First Amendment law.  Abood provided a
workable  standard  for  courts  to  apply.  And  Abood  has 
generated  enormous  reliance  interests.  The  majority  has 
overruled  Abood  for  no  exceptional  or  special  reason,  but
because it never liked the decision.  It has overruled Abood 
because it wanted to. 

Because,  that  is,  it  wanted  to  pick  the  winning  side  in 
what  should  be—and  until  now,  has  been—an  energetic 
policy debate.  Some state and local governments (and the
constituents they serve) think that stable unions promote
healthy labor relations and thereby improve the provision 
of  services  to  the  public.    Other  state  and  local  govern-
ments (and their constituents) think, to the contrary, that 
strong  unions  impose  excessive  costs  and  impair  those 
services.  Americans  have  debated  the  pros  and  cons  for
many  decades—in  large  part,  by  deciding  whether  to  use 
fair-share  arrangements.  Yesterday,  22  States  were  on 
one  side,  28  on  the  other  (ignoring  a  couple  of  in-
betweeners).  Today,  that  healthy—that  democratic— 
debate  ends.  The  majority  has  adjudged  who  should 
prevail.  Indeed,  the  majority  is  bursting  with  pride  over 
what  it  has  accomplished:  Now  those  22  States,  it  crows, 
“can  follow  the  model  of  the  federal  government  and  28 
other States.”  Ante, at 47, n. 27. 

And maybe most alarming, the majority has chosen the 
winners  by  turning  the  First  Amendment  into  a  sword,
and  using  it  against  workaday  economic  and  regulatory 
policy.  Today  is  not  the  first  time  the  Court  has  wielded
the First Amendment in such an aggressive way.  See, e.g., 
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 
ante,  p.  ___  (invalidating  a  law  requiring  medical  and 
counseling  facilities  to  provide  relevant  information  to
users);  Sorrell  v.  IMS  Health  Inc.,  564  U. S.  552  (2011) 
(striking  down  a  law  that  restricted  pharmacies  from 
selling various data).  And it threatens not to be the last. 
Speech  is  everywhere—a  part  of  every  human  activity