Abstract
In Janus v. AFSCME, the Supreme Court ruled that government employees may not be forced to pay anything to a union against their will. Such compulsion, the Court said, violates First Amendment free speech rights. This decision, however, lacks a firm basis in the law. As a purported exercise of neutral judgement power, the Court's reasoning makes little sense. It hyper-scrutinizes one bit of precedent while uncritically accepting others, with no satisfying explanation for this disparity. And its analysis of original meaning is cursory and evades the key issues. Ultimately, the Janus decision cannot be justified on neutral principles: neither original meaning nor precedent can adequately explain it.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
