On a humid June morning in 2018, a relatively obscure Illinois child‑support specialist walked out of the marble chambers of the Supreme Court having dealt public‑sector unions their largest legal defeat in a generation. Behind Mark Janus stood the Liberty Justice Center and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, whose attorney William Messenger used a crisp First Amendment argument to persuade a five‑justice majority that forcing government workers to fund union speech crosses a constitutional line.​​

Abood overturned, money at stake

The Court’s 5-4 decision in Janus v. AFSCME 31 overturned the 1977 Abood precedent and held that state and local governments may not deduct “agency fees” from nonmembers’ paychecks without their affirmative consent. The ruling instantly converted every state and local government job in America into a de facto right‑to‑work position, freeing millions of teachers, police officers, and other civil servants from the obligation to financially support unions they declined to join.​

For unions, the financial stakes were immense. Research from the Mackinac Center estimates that public‑sector unions in non‑right‑to‑work states are now collecting roughly three‑quarters of a billion dollars less per year in dues and fees than they would have without Janus Rights. Those lost dollars translate directly into diminished political clout for some of the Democratic Party’s most reliable institutional allies, which have long relied on public‑sector treasuries to underwrite campaign work and lobbying operations.​

1.2–1.3 million walk away

Six years on, the human tally behind the legal headlines has come into sharper focus. Analysts who combed through payroll records and union filings estimate that about 1.2 million government workers in the affected states are no longer paying union dues or fees, with some newer counts putting the figure above 1.3 million. In practical terms, roughly one in five workers covered by public‑sector bargaining agreements in those states has chosen to exercise Janus Rights and keep their money.​

That opt‑out wave has been uneven. Some unions have held membership relatively steady by tightening enrollment windows and deploying intensive in‑person campaigns to re‑sign workers, while others—particularly in education and local government—have seen noticeable erosion in dues‑paying ranks. The overall pattern, however, is clear: when given a genuine choice, a significant minority of public employees prefers to separate workplace representation from political spending.​

Messenger’s First Amendment Argument

Messenger’s core pitch to the justices was deceptively simple: in the public sector, every bargaining position—from wage scales to pension formulas—is inherently about public policy, so compelling workers to bankroll that speech violates their First Amendment rights. That framing answered decades of union arguments that bargaining is a technical workplace matter distinct from politics, and it gave the Court a constitutional hook to reject mandatory fees even if unions continue to represent nonmembers.​​

The Court embraced that logic, holding that governments must secure “affirmative consent” before taking money for union speech from any worker. That subtle phrase has since generated a second wave of litigation, as Right to Work Foundation attorneys and allied groups challenge restrictive dues‑revocation policies and seek refunds for fees collected before the 2018 ruling.​

The fight after the victory

Public‑sector unions have not stood still. Many state legislatures where unions hold sway moved quickly to shore up membership by codifying “maintenance of dues” clauses, granting unions greater access to employee orientations, or limiting when workers can revoke dues authorizations. In response, the Foundation and other groups are prosecuting dozens of follow‑on cases that could determine whether Janus functions as a broad worker‑freedom guarantee or a narrow technical ruling cabined by contract law.​

Whatever the outcome of those battles, Janus has already redrawn the map of public‑sector labor relations. A case that began with one state employee’s objection to a line on his pay stub has, through a carefully engineered legal strategy and a pointed oral argument from William Messenger, given more than a million of his peers a new kind of exit option. For unions accustomed to guaranteed revenue streams, the age of voluntary support is here—and it is testing how many workers truly believe the product is worth the price.