Right before punching the clock out before going on summer vacation, the Supreme Court ruled on one last major case, Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31. And it did not go well for the unions.

As in, the public sector unions can no longer force workers to pay fees.

BREAKING: #SCOTUS overrules 40 year old case. Holds 5-4 public sector employees cannot be forced to pay union fees.

— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) June 27, 2018

In a major legal and political defeat for big labor, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that state government workers cannot be forced to pay so-called “fair share” fees to support collective bargaining and other union activities.

The conservative majority said a union’s contract negotiations over pay and benefits were inextricably linked with its broader political activities, and concluded workers had a limited constitutional right not to underwrite such “speech.” The case specifically examined union fees paid by non-members.

“This procedure violates the First Amendment and cannot continue,” Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. “Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a non-member’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.”

Here is a quick breakdown of the case, made last February before the oral arguments.

The real lawyers immediately began to break down the decision on Twitter.

Janus is out. As expected, J. Alito writes. States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees.

Link: https://t.co/uMPvSdiVpm

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 27, 2018

Settle yourself in with popcorn for the sniping between justices.

For all the practical outcome of Janus, don't miss the real action: J. Alito v. J. Kagan on stare decisis. pic.twitter.com/Qf9I6qqreE

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 27, 2018

J. Kagan concludes with a lament that recent SCOTUS jurisprudence on the First Amendment has led to "black-robed rulers overriding citizens' choices" including in Janus.

(Which shows just how far apart opinions are on whether a system of compelled agency fees is a choice.) pic.twitter.com/eyMNe754yW

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 27, 2018

For J. Kagan and the dissenters, the more important thing is that public has made a policy choice in favor of agency shop agreements.

For J. Alito and the majority, the more important thing is the individual employee's choice to participate in the union or not.

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 27, 2018

BTW, J. Alito's decision in Janus also forecloses union opt-out presumptions. Under Janus, employees must clearly and affirmatively opt-in to paying agency fees before the union can enlist the employer to collect them. pic.twitter.com/fE0aPkNBNJ

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 27, 2018

I suppose it's worth noting that public sector unions have survived just fine in the 28 states with laws prohibiting agency fees.

Is it a serious financial blow? Sure. Is it an existential blow. Nah. https://t.co/qKXwYaTQGo

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 27, 2018

Actually, this goes even further than my first reading. The decision forecloses ANY payments to unions, not just agency fees, without clear, affirmative consent of the employee.

Any payment at all. https://t.co/WjXaMnkRxf

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 27, 2018

Janus result suggested by yesterday’s opinion on compelled speech, and by recent First Amendment cases in general.

— ThisIsNotNormalHat (@Popehat) June 27, 2018

Many will argue that this term's First Amendment cases represent a conservative policy agenda. I understand that, and I'm unlikely to persuade anyone who thinks so.

But it's not the only way to look at it. /1

— ThisIsNotNormalHat (@Popehat) June 27, 2018

/2 Looked at another way, Janus and NIFLA are a continuation of a pattern this century of SCOTUS hostility towards new or special exceptions to the First Amendment, and adherence to a closed set of exceptions.

— ThisIsNotNormalHat (@Popehat) June 27, 2018

/3 You've got US v. Stevens — the crush videos case — saying "no, you can't make up new exceptions for speech you don't like, these are the traditional exceptions, and anything not in there gets subjected to strict scrutiny."

— ThisIsNotNormalHat (@Popehat) June 27, 2018

/4 You've got Snyder v. Phelps — "these funeral protesters are total assholes but we're not creating new exceptions for them or stretching the old ones." And so on.

— ThisIsNotNormalHat (@Popehat) June 27, 2018

/5 You've also got SCOTUS repeatedly saying "yes, you have to apply strict scrutiny, even if the results seem to overturn stuff you thought you could do." Gilbert v. Reed: yes, banning all political signs is content-based, so strict scrutiny for you.

— ThisIsNotNormalHat (@Popehat) June 27, 2018

/6 NIFLA and Janus are consistent with that trend — with saying "we're not recognizing new-fangled judge-created exceptions or asterisks to First Amendment protections, even for widely popular policy reasons — we're applying the same harsh test to everything."

— ThisIsNotNormalHat (@Popehat) June 27, 2018

/7 Again, I'm not even going to try to move you off of your "conservative policy agenda" belief. But if you don't understand the theory and the trend, you're going to be either delighted or horrified by future cases that don't come out adhering to conservative policy. /end

— ThisIsNotNormalHat (@Popehat) June 27, 2018

Cue the whining on the left:

It's simple: Janus v. AFSCME is the biggest assault on unions and working families we've seen in decades.

Now isn't the time to back down—we need to stand up, mobilize, and press forward in the fight for workers’ rights and an economy that works for everyone.#MA3 #MApoli #Union pic.twitter.com/oOLBGFzk9w

— Dan Koh (@dank) June 27, 2018

Breaking: #SCOTUS rules against unions in Janus v AFSCME, making the entire public sector right-to-work. A severe blow to the labor movement. The fallout will be felt for years — for unions and the Democratic Party.

— Dave Jamieson, LLC (@jamieson) June 27, 2018

Crucially, this ruling against unions would *not* have happened without the blockade of Merrick Garland. It's hard to overstate what a win this is for the right. McConnell has weakened part of the Democratic coalition via Janus.

— Dave Jamieson, LLC (@jamieson) June 27, 2018

The Supreme Court has dealt a blow to teachers' unions, and other public sector unions, in the Janus case, ruling that free speech rights of non-members are violated when they are compelled to pay "agency fees," because unions take political positions beyond the bargaining table.

— Dana Goldstein (@DanaGoldstein) June 27, 2018

Via @SCOTUSblog, the Court also declares that union fees must be opt-in for employees, not opt-out, which will create a further barrier to unions collecting fees.

— Dana Goldstein (@DanaGoldstein) June 27, 2018

Non-members are already able to opt-out of fees used to finance political organizing, but had not been able to opt out of fees used to pay for the costs of collective bargaining and representing workers in disputes with management.

— Dana Goldstein (@DanaGoldstein) June 27, 2018

#Janus #TheResistance #JANUSvsAFSCME #Resist #RedHen #SCOTUS pic.twitter.com/9Lz9wQjele

— George Beckett (@GeorgeBeckett7) June 27, 2018

#Janus decision sends economy in wrong direction. Calling on #NMPOL leaders to make it easier to unite in unions and build power for all working people. #UNIONSTRONG. Unions remain most effective vehicle for working people to secure rights, freedoms, path to middle class. #AFSCME pic.twitter.com/hjYkmrfmOi

— AFSCME Council 18 (@afscme18) June 27, 2018

And with that, the court adjourned without any announcements about retirements.

No retirement announcements at #SCOTUS today

— Jeffrey Toobin (@JeffreyToobin) June 27, 2018

#SCOTUS adjourns for the term without a retirement announcement

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2018

So, barring something dramatic happening before the start of the next court session in October, this same court will be on the clock again next term.

While I have never been in a union myself, I grew up in a blue-collar union household. I have seen the union tactics play out in front of me, especially when I was a college student, and as a patient in a university medical setting. I am not convinced that unions are still necessary in the 21st century. I also know that the heads of unions wield more power and take more money than they should. Any rebuke on union power that allows actual working people to keep more of their own money is a good thing.

UPDATE 2:10 PM PT
Well, so much for nothing dramatic happening today…

BREAKING: Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire. https://t.co/jn8limUSe7 pic.twitter.com/P6rP8BXj6M

— CNBC Now (@CNBCnow) June 27, 2018

Please read Nina’s excellent post about this new turn of events.