EDITORIAL: U.S. Supreme Court sets date for arguments in forced union dues case

For more than four decades, public-sector employees have been forced to pay union fees as a condition of their employment — even if those employees aren’t actually union members.

The U.S. Supreme Court legalized this form of extortion in 1977 when the justices ruled that nonunion government workers could be compelled to pay union dues because they benefited from collective bargaining efforts.

The decision was based on the “free-rider” fallacy, which holds that mandatory contributions make up for the fact that nonunion workers realize a gain from union activity while avoiding the cost of membership. But the most appropriate way to address such concerns is to smash the union negotiating monopoly, limit union representation to those who voluntarily become members and allow other employees to broker their own deals. Nobody should be forced to financially support an organization — particularly one engaged in political activity — that they have no interest in joining.

But the justices will soon have the opportunity to correct the injustice that lives on thanks to the 1977 ruling. Shortly before Christmas, the court scheduled arguments in Janus v. AFSCME for the end of February. The case has public-sector unions in a panic because it threatens to cut off a lucrative money stream that they have tapped for decades to support leftist causes and Democratic candidates.

The case centers on Mark Janus, a nonunion child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. He argues that paying fees to support unions’ bargaining activities violates his First Amendment rights because it forces him to fund political speech and political activity that he doesn’t support.

Mr. Janus is receiving free representation in the case from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Illinois-based Liberty Justice Center.

“Right now, public sector employees in Illinois and many other states aren’t given a choice: They’re automatically forced to give their money to a union,” Jacob Huebert, director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, said in a statement. “Janus v. AFSCME presents an opportunity to restore fairness and First Amendment rights to millions of American workers by giving them the right to choose whether to support a union with their money.”

Unions argue that they are already restricted from using non-member dues for political activity. But money is fungible. Besides, public-sector collective bargaining is, in and of itself, inherently political, involving all sorts of public policy issues regarding taxation and the size and scope of government.

The case represents a do-over for the high court — and that’s why labor interests fear the potential outcome. In 2016, the justices heard a similar case out of California involving a public school teacher who refused to join the union and objected on First Amendment grounds to being forced to fork over dues. But the death of Antonin Scalia left an eight-member court and the justices split 4-4 along ideological lines, leaving the 1977 precedent in place.

With Neil Gorsuch now on the court, speculation is that a majority of justices will look askance at policies that force government workers to subsidize Big Labor as a condition of earning a living.

We can only hope.