Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Harris v. Quinn

Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentCompelled SpeechPublic-Sector Union FeesFirst Amendmentagency feesfair share feescompelled subsidization of speech

Facts

Illinois's Rehabilitation Program allows disabled individuals receiving in-home care to hire personal assistants, and state law provides that the customer receiving care is the employer who hires, supervises, disciplines, and fires the assistant. Illinois nevertheless classified these assistants as public employees solely for purposes of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, allowing SEIU-HII to serve as exclusive representative and to collect fair-share fees from nonmembers. The State pays the assistants through Medicaid funds and sets some minimal qualifications, but assistants are not state employees for other purposes such as tort liability, retirement, or health insurance benefits. Petitioners were personal assistants who objected to paying fees to a union they did not wish to support.

Issue

May a State, consistent with the First Amendment, compel personal assistants who are not full-fledged state employees, but are deemed public employees only for collective-bargaining purposes, to pay agency or fair-share fees to a union? More specifically, does Abood extend to these personal assistants?

Rule

The First Amendment does not permit a State to compel individuals to subsidize union speech on matters of public concern unless the compelled fee arrangement survives exacting First Amendment scrutiny. Abood's allowance of agency fees is limited to full-fledged public employees and does not extend to workers who are treated as public employees only for collective-bargaining purposes.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Oregon creates a home-attendant program for adults with severe disabilities living in Portland and Eugene. State law says attendants are "public employees" only for collective-bargaining purposes, while each client hires, trains, supervises, and may fire the attendant; the State merely pays wages from Medicaid funds and sets minimum qualifications.

A nonmember attendant challenges a required fair-share fee deducted from her pay. Which is the strongest argument that the fee violates the First Amendment?

Explanation. The majority confined Abood to full-fledged public employees and refused to extend it to workers deemed public employees solely for collective-bargaining purposes. The Court focused on the actual employment relationship—especially who controls hiring, supervision, discipline, and discharge—not the State's label. It did not hold that exclusive representation is always unconstitutional, nor that all agency fees are invalid in every public-employment setting.