Harris v. Quinn | |
---|---|
Argued January 21, 2014 Decided June 30, 2014 | |
Full case name | Pamela Harris, et al., Petitioners v. Pat Quinn, Governor of Illinois, et al. |
Docket no. | 11-681 |
Citations | 573 U.S. 616 (more) 134 S. Ct. 2618; 189 L. Ed. 2d 620 |
Case history | |
Prior | 656 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2011); cert. granted, 570 U.S. 948 (2013). |
Holding | |
The First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from Rehabilitation Program PAs who do not want to join or support the union | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
Dissent | Kagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I |
Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (2014), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court regarding provisions of Illinois state law that allowed a union security agreement. Since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 prohibited the closed shop, states could still choose whether to allow unions to collect fees from non-union members since the collective agreements with the employer would still benefit non-union members. The Court decided 5–4 that Illinois's Public Labor Relations Act, which permitted the union security agreements, violated the First Amendment. A similar case was decided by the Court in 2018, Janus v AFSCME,[1] overturning the Court's unanimous decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) which the appeals court had upheld in Harris.