Janus was a nonsensical ruling on its face. The right-wing justices decided that non-political agency fees must be treated as political speech, but they didn't grant collective bargaining any of the rights associated with speech.
For instance, if every kind of union activity is speech — and therefore unconstitutional to compel agency fees to subsidize — that would imply anything that *restricts* collective bargaining is also unconstitutional as a restriction of speech.
That would imply a whole host of laws regulating how unions conduct their business are unconstitutional — bans on solidarity strikes, bans on lobbying municipal governments, restrictions on public employees conducting union business on the clock.
The justices are silent on this.
The justices are silent on this.
Part of me wants unions to wait until Dems are getting judges back on the courts again before mounting "collective bargaining is speech, SCOTUS said so in Janus" lawsuits.
But another part of me wants to see the current crop of right-wing judges' heads explode at that argument.
But another part of me wants to see the current crop of right-wing judges' heads explode at that argument.
Honestly, speaking as a union worker, I'd happily trade the immediate result of the Janus decision for a future precedent in which all laws restricting union activity have to be struck down too.
I don't think the plutocrat plaintiffs in Janus have thought that future through.
I don't think the plutocrat plaintiffs in Janus have thought that future through.
