Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 53

48  JANUS v. STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 

Opinion of the Court 

VII 

For  these  reasons,  States  and  public-sector  unions  may 

no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employ­
ees.  Under  Illinois  law,  if  a  public-sector  collective-
bargaining  agreement  includes  an  agency-fee  provision
and the union certifies to the employer the amount of the 
fee,  that  amount  is  automatically  deducted  from  the  non­
member’s wages.  §315/6(e).  No form of employee consent 
is required.

This  procedure  violates  the  First  Amendment  and  can­
not  continue.  Neither  an  agency  fee  nor  any  other  pay­
ment  to  the  union  may  be  deducted  from  a  nonmember’s 
wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such
a  payment,  unless  the  employee affirmatively  consents  to 
pay.  By  agreeing  to  pay,  nonmembers  are  waiving  their 
First  Amendment  rights,  and  such  a  waiver  cannot  be
presumed.  Johnson  v.  Zerbst,  304  U. S.  458,  464  (1938); 
see also Knox, 567 U. S., at 312–313.  Rather, to be effec­
tive, the waiver must be freely given and shown by “clear 
and compelling” evidence.  Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 
388  U. S.  130,  145  (1967)  (plurality  opinion);  see  also 
College  Savings  Bank  v.  Florida  Prepaid  Postsecondary 
Ed.  Expense  Bd.,  527  U. S.  666,  680–682  (1999).    Unless 
employees  clearly  and  affirmatively  consent  before  any 
money is taken from them, this standard cannot be met. 

—————— 

side,”  ibid.—unless  the  Constitution  commands  that  they  do  so.    But 
when  a  federal  or  state  law  violates  the  Constitution,  the  American 
doctrine  of  judicial  review  requires  us  to  enforce  the  Constitution. 
Here,  States  with  agency-fee  laws  have  abridged  fundamental  free 
speech  rights.    In  holding  that  these  laws  violate  the  Constitution,  we
are  simply  enforcing  the  First  Amendment  as  properly  understood, 
“[t]he  very  purpose  of  [which]  was  to  withdraw  certain  subjects  from
the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach 
of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be
applied by the courts.”  West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 
624, 638 (1943).