Supreme Court Precedent Ignored by Lower Courts in Union Payment Cases

In a concerning trend for individual worker rights, lower courts are reportedly ignoring a key U.S. Supreme Court decision, Janus v. AFSCME, to continue enforcing mandatory union payments from public employees. This issue, highlighted in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court on July 24, 2025, by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, argues that states and unions are circumventing the 2018 Janus ruling, which declared it unconstitutional to compel public employees to pay union fees without their clear and affirmative consent. The brief urges the Supreme Court to step in and ensure its precedent is respected, protecting the First Amendment rights of millions of public workers.

Background on Public Sector Union Payments and the Janus Decision

For decades, many public employees in states without “Right-to-Work” laws were required to pay “agency fees” or “fair share fees” to a public sector union as a condition of employment, even if they chose not to be full union members. These fees were intended to cover the costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance procedures from which non-members benefited. This practice was upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which reasoned that requiring these payments prevented “free riders” who benefited from union representation without contributing to its costs.

However, the legal landscape shifted dramatically with the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (AFSCME). In a 5-4 ruling, the Court overturned Abood, holding that requiring public employees to pay agency fees violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and association. The Janus Court stated that “neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.” This meant that public employees could no longer be forced to financially support a union as a condition of employment.

Lower Courts and States Sidestep Supreme Court Mandate

Despite the clear mandate from Janus, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy contend that at least 17 states and numerous unions are implementing tactics to undermine the ruling. These tactics often involve restrictive “opt-out” windows, sometimes as narrow as 10-15 days per year or even once per multi-year contract, during which employees can stop payroll deductions for union dues. If an employee misses this window, they can be forced to continue paying for years, even after resigning union membership.

Even more concerning, several U.S. Circuit Courts have ruled that governments and unions can continue deducting dues without “clear and compelling evidence” of an employee’s knowing and voluntary waiver of their First Amendment right to opt out. Instead, these courts have allowed union contract fine print and procedural hurdles to effectively trap employees in payment obligations. The Ninth Circuit, in particular, has been criticized for ruling that states can seize union dues based solely on a union’s assertion of consent, even if that claim is false, and that unions themselves are not “state actors” bound by constitutional limits despite directing government payroll deductions. This, the brief argues, directly contradicts the spirit and letter of the Janus decision.

Key details of the ongoing issue:

• Supreme Court Precedent: Janus v. AFSCME (2018) ruled that public employees cannot be forced to pay union fees without affirmative consent.

• Alleged Violations: States and unions are using restrictive “opt-out” windows and relying on weak consent standards to continue collecting fees.

• Lower Court Rulings: Six U.S. Circuit Courts have allowed unions and governments to keep deducting dues without clear evidence of employee consent.

• Specific Example: The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Wright v. SEIU Local 503 stated that states could seize dues based on a union’s assertion of consent, even if unverified.

• Organizations Challenging: National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed an amicus brief on July 24, 2025, urging Supreme Court intervention.

• Impact on Employees: Millions of public employees may be forced to pay for union speech they oppose due to missed narrow opt-out windows or insufficient consent standards.

Aggressive Defense in any Courtroom

For anyone facing charges –  Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law PLLC brings extensive experience in criminal defense in any Michigan court, including Federal Court. Call the office to to hire us. 248-357-2550

Suggestions/Links to Similar Articles:

• Mackinac Center – Lower courts ignore Supreme Court precedent to force union payments
• Oyez – Janus v. AFSCME Case Summary 
• National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation – Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?
• Michigan Legislature – Public Employment Relations Act (MCL 423.210 discusses union security):  (Note: While this MCL section discusses permissible union security arrangements, it must be read in light of the Janus decision’s impact on public sector unions.)
• Right to work law dies in 2024
• Komorn Law – Criminal Defense (General)

We represent clients throughout the

State of Michigan and Northern Ohio.

Here are some court contacts we frequently handle cases.

Oakland County

If you are facing any legal charges in Oakland County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (248) 858-0344
• Address: 1200 N Telegraph Rd, Department 404, Pontiac, MI 48341-0404
• Website: Oakland County 6th Judicial Circuit Court

Macomb County

If you are facing any legal charges in Macomb County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (586) 469-5150
• Address: 40 N. Main Street, Mt. Clemens, MI 48043
• Website: Macomb County 16th Judicial Circuit Court

Wayne County

If you are facing any legal charges in Wayne County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the Third Circuit Court (Wayne County):

• Telephone Number (Civil/Family): (313) 224-5510
• Telephone Number (Criminal): (313) 224-5261 or (313) 224-2503
• Address (Civil/Family): 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226
• Address (Criminal): 1441 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI 48226
• Website: https://www.3rdcc.org/

Kent County

If you are facing any legal charges in Kent County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (616) 632-5220
• Address: 180 Ottawa Avenue NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
• Website: Kent County

Traverse County

If you are facing any legal charges in Traverse County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the 13th Circuit Court (which includes Traverse County):

• Telephone Number: (231) 922-4701
• Address: 328 Washington Street, Suite 300, Traverse City, MI 49684
• Website: Traverse City 13h Circuit Court

Monroe County

If you are facing any legal charges in Monroe County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

• Telephone Number: (734) 240-7020
• Address: 106 E First Street, Monroe, MI 48161
• Website: Monroe County 38th Circuit Court