Abood v. Detroit Board of Education

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education
Argued November 9, 1976
Decided May 23, 1977
Full case nameD. Louis Abood v. Detroit Board of Education
Docket no.75-1153
Citations431 U.S. 209 (more)
97 S. Ct. 1782; 52 L. Ed. 2d 261; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 91
ArgumentOral argument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
Prior60 Mich. App. 92, 230 N.W.2d 322 (1975); probable jurisdiction noted, 425 U.S. 949 (1976).
SubsequentRehearing denied, 433 U.S. 915 (1977).
Holding
"Agency shop" clause whereby every employee represented by a union, even though not a union member, must pay to the union, as a condition of employment, a service charge equal in amount to union dues, was valid insofar as the service charges are used to finance expenditures by the union for collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityStewart, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Rehnquist, Stevens
ConcurrenceRehnquist
ConcurrenceStevens
ConcurrencePowell (in judgment), joined by Burger, Blackmun
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I
Overruled by
Janus v. AFSCME (2018)

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), was a US labor law case where the United States Supreme Court upheld the maintaining of a union shop in a public workplace. Public school teachers in Detroit had sought to overturn the requirement that they pay fees equivalent to union dues on the grounds that they opposed public sector collective bargaining and objected to the political activities of the union. In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed that the union shop, legal in the private sector, is also legal in the public sector. They found that non-members may be assessed agency fees to recover the costs of "collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes" while insisting that objectors to union membership or policy may not have their dues used for other ideological or political purposes.[1]

Abood was overturned in the 2018 case Janus v. AFSCME, which found that Abood had failed to properly assess the First Amendment principles in its decision.

  1. ^ Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977).  This article incorporates public domain material from judicial opinions or other documents created by the federal judiciary of the United States.

Developed by StudentB