Giving Compass' Take:

• The Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 Supreme Court decision prevents states and school districts from requiring that teachers pay negotiating fees to the unions that bargain on their behalf, weakening teachers unions in 22 states.

• What should be the role of unions in society? What are the larger implications of this decision for unions? 

• Teacher salaries have been on the decline. 

Teachers unions absorbed a deep but expected blow on June 27th from the nation’s highest court.

The 5-4 ruling in the case, Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, means that states and school districts will no longer be able to require their employees to pay negotiating fees to the unions that bargain on their behalf. That could mean a steep decline in union membership and dues, which in turn will limit the unions’ political power — the hope of the conservative groups that helped bring the case.

“We conclude that public-sector agency-shop arrangements violate the First Amendment,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the majority opinion. He emphasized that employees must also affirmatively opt in to union membership, potentially making unions’ efforts to keep members even more challenging.

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned: “Across the country, the relationships of public employees and employers will alter in both predictable and wholly unexpected ways.”

Unions have been preparing for this outcome, which seemed like an inevitability after Donald Trump won the presidential election. That gave him the opportunity to replace Antonin Scalia, whose unexpected death led to the 4-4 tie in a similar case two years ago.

Read the full article about Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 by Matt Barnum at Chalkbeat.