In a short video on the Manhattan Institute website, Daniel DiSalvo discusses the facts and implications of Janus v. AFSCME, a US Supreme Court case scheduled for oral argument on February 26. From the Petition for Writ of Certiorari:
Twice in the past five years this Court has questioned its holding in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977) that it is constitutional for a government to force its employees to pay agency fees to an exclusive representative for speaking and contracting with the government over policies that affect their profession. See Harris v. Quinn, __ U.S. __ , __, 134 S. Ct. 2618, 2632–34 (2014); Knox v. SEIU, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, __, 132 S. Ct. 2277, 2289 (2012). Last term this Court split 4 to 4 on whether to overrule Abood. Friedrichs v. Cal. Teachers Ass’n, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 1083 (2016). This case presents the same question presented in Friedrichs: should Abood be overruled and public sector agency fee arrangements declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment?