Court Opinion

ID: 9426792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:18:57.442025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:03.192746
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stevens,
concurring.
By joining the opinion of the Court, including its discussion of possible remedies, I do not imply — nor do I understand the Court to imply — that the remedies described in Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740, and Railway Clerks v. Allen, 373 U. S. 113, would necessarily be adequate in this case or in any other case. More specifically, the Court’s opinion does not foreclose the argument that the Union should not be permitted to exact a service fee from nonmembers without first establishing a procedure which will avoid the risk that their funds will be used, even temporarily, to finance ideological activities unrelated to collective bargaining. Any final decision on the appropriate remedy must await the full development of the facts at trial.*

The case is before us on the equivalent of a motion to dismiss. Ante, at 213-214, n. 4. Our knowledge of the facts is limited to a bald assertion that the Union engages “ 'in a number and variety of activities and programs which are economic, political, professional, scientific and religious in nature of which Plaintiffs do not approve Ante, at 213, and n. 3. What, if anything, will be proved at trial is a matter for conjecture.