Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 9

4  JANUS v. STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 

Opinion of the Court 

the fees are deducted. 

After  the  amount  of  the  agency  fee  is  fixed  each  year, 
the  union  must  send  nonmembers  what  is  known  as  a 
Hudson  notice.  See  Teachers  v.  Hudson,  475  U. S.  292 
(1986).  This  notice  is  supposed  to  provide  nonmembers
with “an adequate explanation of the basis for the [agency] 
fee.”  Id., at 310.  If nonmembers “suspect that a union has 
improperly  put  certain  expenses  in  the  [chargeable]  cate­
gory,”  they  may  challenge  that  determination.    Harris, 
supra, at ___ (slip op., at 19). 

As  illustrated  by  the  record  in  this  case,  unions  charge
nonmembers, not just for the cost  of collective bargaining 
per  se,  but  also  for  many  other  supposedly  connected 
activities.  See  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  28a–39a.    Here,  the 
nonmembers  were  told  that  they  had  to  pay 
for 
“[l]obbying,”  “[s]ocial  and  recreational  activities,”  “adver­
tising,”  “[m]embership  meetings  and  conventions,”  and 
“litigation,”  as  well  as  other  unspecified  “[s]ervices”  that 
“may ultimately inure to the benefit of the members of the 
local bargaining unit.”  Id., at 28a–32a.  The total charge­
able  amount  for  nonmembers  was  78.06%  of  full  union 
dues.  Id., at 34a. 

B 
Petitioner  Mark  Janus  is  employed  by  the  Illinois  De­
partment  of  Healthcare  and  Family  Services  as  a  child
support specialist.  Id., at 10a.  The employees in his unit 
are among the 35,000 public employees in Illinois who are
represented  by  respondent  American  Federation  of  State,
County,  and  Municipal  Employees,  Council  31  (Union). 
Ibid.  Janus refused to join the Union because he opposes 
“many  of  the  public  policy  positions  that  [it]  advocates,”
including  the  positions  it  takes  in  collective  bargaining. 
Id., at 10a, 18a.  Janus believes that the Union’s “behavior 
in bargaining does not appreciate the current fiscal crises 
in  Illinois  and  does  not  reflect  his  best  interests  or  the