Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000

Supreme Court of the United States · 2012 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentPublic-sector unionsCompelled speechAgency feesFirst Amendmentagency shoppublic-sector union

Facts

SEIU sent its annual Hudson notice in June 2005, stating that objecting nonmembers would pay 56.35% of regular dues based on the prior year's audited expenditures. After the objection period closed, SEIU adopted a temporary 25% increase labeled an "Emergency Temporary Assessment to Build a Political Fight-Back Fund" to oppose ballot propositions and support related electoral efforts, and it told employees the fund would not be used for regular union costs. SEIU did not send a new Hudson notice or provide a new opportunity to object, and it required even prior objectors to pay 56.35% of the assessment. Nonmembers sued, arguing both that prior objectors should not have been charged for this political assessment and that nonobjectors should have been given a fresh opportunity to object.

Issue

Does the First Amendment permit a public-sector union to require nonmembers to pay a special assessment or dues increase for political and ideological activities without first providing a fresh Hudson notice and obtaining their affirmative consent? May a union rely on the prior year's chargeable-expense percentage to charge objecting nonmembers for such a special political assessment?

Rule

Procedures for collecting fees from nonmembers must be carefully tailored to minimize infringement of First Amendment rights. Therefore, when a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, it must provide a fresh Hudson notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent; prior-year percentages used for annual dues cannot justify charging objecting nonmembers for an unanticipated special assessment aimed at political or ideological activity.

🔒

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.

The Metro Public Employees Guild represents city sanitation workers in Cleveland under an agency-shop arrangement. In March, it sent its annual fee notice stating the percentage of chargeable expenses based on the prior year's audit. In September, after a surprise statewide referendum appeared on the ballot, the guild imposed a one-time assessment to fund mailers, digital ads, and canvassing against the measure, but it gave no new notice and deducted the assessment from all nonmembers who had not objected in March.

Which is the strongest argument that the guild's procedure violated the First Amendment?

Explanation. The majority held that when a public-sector union levies a special assessment or dues increase not disclosed in the annual notice, nonmembers cannot make an informed choice in advance. Procedures for collecting fees from nonmembers must be carefully tailored to minimize First Amendment infringement, so a fresh Hudson notice is required before collecting such a special political assessment. (Derived from Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (2012).)