Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 34.0

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

1 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 10–1121 
_________________ 

DIANNE KNOX, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SERVICE EM- 
PLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 21, 2012] 

JUSTICE  BREYER,  with  whom  JUSTICE  KAGAN  joins,

dissenting. 

In Teachers v. Hudson, 475 U. S. 292 (1986), this Court 
unanimously  held  that  “the  Union  cannot  be  faulted  for
calculating  its  fee  on  the  basis  of  its  expenses  during  the 
preceding year.”  Id., at 307, n. 18.  That is precisely what
the union has done in this case.  I see no reason to modify 
Hudson’s holding as here applied.  I consequently dissent. 

I 

In Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209 (1977), the 
Court  held  that  nonunion  public  employees  have  a  First 
Amendment right  to prevent a union’s spending a part of 
their  compulsory  fees  on  contributions  to  political  candi-
dates  or  on  “express[ions  of ]  political  views  unrelated  to
[the  union’s]  duties  as  exclusive  bargaining  representa-
tive.”  Id.,  at  234.  A  decade  later  in  Hudson,  the  Court 
considered  the  constitutionality  of  procedures  adopted  to
implement Abood.  In particular, the Court considered the 
procedures  adopted  by  a  teachers  union  “to  draw  that 
necessary  line  and  to  respond  to  nonmembers’  objections
to the manner in which it was drawn.”  475 U. S., at 294. 

The  teachers  union  had  calculated  the  fee  it  could 
charge nonmembers during a particular year on the basis
of  the  expenditures  the  union  actually  made  during  the