## Facts

- California law permitted a public-sector agency-shop arrangement requiring nonunion employees in a bargaining unit to pay an agency fee covering chargeable collective-bargaining costs.
- SEIU Local 1000, the exclusive representative for many California state employees, sent an annual notice describing prior-year expenditures, the chargeable percentage, and an objection procedure with a deadline.
- After the objection period closed, the union imposed a temporary 25% dues/fee increase and removed a monthly cap to fund political activity in a special election opposing certain ballot initiatives.
- The union did not issue a new notice describing the assessment or provide a new opportunity to object before collecting it.
- Nonmembers were charged a portion of the special assessment using the prior year’s chargeable percentage, although the assessment’s purpose was largely electoral and political.
- Nonmember employees sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the employees; the Ninth Circuit reversed.
- After certiorari was granted, the union offered refunds with interest and stated it would provide notice for similar future assessments.

## Issues

1. Whether the union’s post-certiorari refund offer and policy change mooted the case.
2. Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments permit a public-sector union to collect a mid-year special assessment for political purposes from nonmembers without a new notice and pre-collection opportunity to object.
3. Whether the First Amendment permits an opt-out default for such a special political assessment, or instead requires affirmative opt-in consent from nonmembers.

## Decision

- The Court held the dispute was not moot despite the refund offer and asserted change in practice.
- The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that when a union imposes a special assessment or dues increase not disclosed in the annual notice, it must provide a fresh notice and a new chance to object before collecting funds from nonmembers.
- A majority further held the union could not collect this type of special political assessment from nonmembers absent their affirmative consent (opt-in).

## Legal Principles

- Voluntary cessation and post-certiorari refunds do not moot a case unless it is absolutely clear the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur; strategic repayment does not eliminate a live controversy, including in a class action posture.
- Compelled subsidization of union speech by public employees implicates the First Amendment and is subject to exacting scrutiny; protections must ensure nonmembers are not forced to fund political or ideological activity without adequate safeguards.
- An annual notice based on prior-year expenditures cannot authorize later, unanticipated special assessments aimed at new political campaigns; a new assessment requires a new notice and objection opportunity before collection.
- For special political assessments imposed mid-year on nonmembers, the First Amendment requires affirmative consent; the burden rests on the union to obtain permission rather than on nonmembers to opt out.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a public-sector union could not rely on a prior annual notice to collect a later special assessment aimed at political advocacy from nonmembers, required a fresh pre-collection notice and objection opportunity, and concluded that such special political assessments may be imposed on nonmembers only with affirmative opt-in consent; a post-certiorari refund offer did not moot the case.


Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, Local 1000, 132 S. Ct. 2277 (2012)