Today’s majority cannot resist taking potshots at Abood… but it ignores the petitioners’ invitation to depart from principles of stare decisis. And the essential work in the majority’s opinion comes from its extended (though mistaken) distinction of Abood… not from its gratuitous dicta critiquing Abood’s foundations. That is to the good — or at least better than it might be. The Abood rule is deeply entrenched, and is the foundation for not tens or hundreds, but thousands of contracts between unions and governments across the Nation. Our precedent about precedent, fairly understood and applied, makes it impossible for this Court to reverse that decision.

– Justice Elena Kagan, using her dissent in Harris v. Quinn to shore up the compelling case that Abood cannot be reversed. Which is going to be downright hilarious next term when the Court goes ahead and reverses it.


comments sponsored by

13 comments (hidden for your protection) Show all comments