Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Read: the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Janus v. AFSCME

The implications of the decision could be huge.

Pro union protesters rally in front of the US Supreme Court building January 11, 2016
Pro union protesters rally in front of the US Supreme Court building January 11, 2016
Pro-union protesters rally in front of the US Supreme Court building January 11, 2016
Mark Wilson/Getty Images

The Supreme Court has ruled that public sector unions cannot charge fees to employees who decline to join a union but are covered by its collective bargaining agreement. In a 5-4 decision in Janus v. AFSCME, the court ruled the fees are unconstitutional, a blow to labor unions in the United States.

Twenty-eight states already ban agency fees, but the 22 states that do not are bastions of union membership, including Ohio, California, and Pennsylvania.

Pro-union advocates have argued that under “right-to-work” laws, nonunion members are reaping the benefits of progress that unions achieve without paying anything in return, resulting in lower membership rates and less influence, Vox’s Dylan Matthews wrote. Meanwhile, anti-union advocates argued that required agency fees violate First Amendment rights by forcing workers to support a political organization regardless of whether they support the cause. Agency fees are fees nonunion members have to pay to unions to cover the cost of collective bargaining.

Read the Supreme Court’s decision here.

Politics
The Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything elseThe Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything else
Politics

McNutt v. DOJ could allow the justices to seize tremendous power over the US economy.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
Even this Supreme Court seems unwilling to end birthright citizenshipEven this Supreme Court seems unwilling to end birthright citizenship
Politics

At least seven justices appear to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment means what it says.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
Why an 8-1 Supreme Court just ruled in favor of anti-LGBTQ+ “conversion therapy”Why an 8-1 Supreme Court just ruled in favor of anti-LGBTQ+ “conversion therapy”
Politics

Sadly, the Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar is correct.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
The sneaky way Trump’s lawyers are supercharging ICEThe sneaky way Trump’s lawyers are supercharging ICE
Politics

A court just gave awful news to victims of ICE’s occupation of Minneapolis.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
The Supreme Court is scared it’s going to break the internetThe Supreme Court is scared it’s going to break the internet
Politics

This is a good thing.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
The ugly history behind Trump’s birthright citizenship case in the Supreme CourtThe ugly history behind Trump’s birthright citizenship case in the Supreme Court
Politics

The peculiar legal argument behind Trump’s attack on citizenship was invented by 19th-century anti-Chinese racists.

By Ian Millhiser