Gary Davenport, et al. v. Washington Education Association (551 U.S. 177)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 14, 2007 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 551 U.S. 177 · 127 S. Ct. 2372
- Decided
- June 14, 2007
- Term
- October Term 2006
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Unions
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. The State of Washington prohibits labor unions from using the agency-shop fees of a nonmember for election-related purposes unless the nonmember affirmatively consents. We decide whether this restriction, as applied to public-sector labor unions, violates the First Amendment. I The National Labor Relations Act leaves States free to regulate their labor relationships with their public employees. See 49 Stat. 450, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 152(2). The labor laws of many States authorize a union and a government employer to enter into what is commonly known as an agency-shop agreement. This arrangement entitles the union to levy a fee on employees who are not union members but who are nevertheless represented by the union in collective bargaining. See, e. g., Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn., 500 U. S. 507, 511 (1991). The primary purpose of such arrangements is to prevent nonmembers from free-riding on the union’s efforts, sharing the employment benefits obtained by the union’s collective bargaining without sharing the costs incurred. See, e. g., Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740, 760-764 (1961). However, agency-shop arrangements in the public sector raise First Amendment concerns because they force individuals to contribute money to unions as a condition of government employment. Thus, in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.…
Excerpt of a 23,367-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.