This opinion piece appeared in The Hill, you can read the full piece here.

Consent matters. But you don’t have to take my word for it — just ask the Supreme Court of the United States. In Janus v. AFSCME, the Court’s five-member majority held that the First Amendment protects public-sector employees — including petitioner Mark Janus — from being compelled “to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern” without prior affirmative consent.

In so ruling, the majority upended its own “poorly reasoned” 41-year-old precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, a Carter-era decision that the Janus Court rightly recognized “has led to practical problems and abuse.”

Under the “consent-free-zone” blessed by Abood, Illinois law required all of its public employees to pay an “agency fee” to the union whether they joined the union or not. That agency fee ostensibly could not pay for expenses related to political candidates or elections, but could be used to subsidize the union’s lobbying efforts, advertising, and even its litigation costs.

Mr. Janus objected. He refused to join the union because he opposed many of its public policy positions that were advanced by those same fees — his money — and he did not believe that the union represented his interests or served his needs.

Nevertheless, state law required Mr. Janus to either pay his monthly agency fee to fund policy positions he did not support, services he did not use, and lawyers that were actively fighting him in federal court, or else he could be fired.

Continue reading…