Mark Janus is a "child-support specialist" who works for the state of Illinois to ensure that minors are taken care of when it comes to divorce and guardianship. He's also at the center of a Supreme Court case that may end the ability of public-sector unions to collect dues even from workers who are not members and don't want to be represented in collective bargaining. Oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME will be heard on Monday, February 23 and decided by the end of June.

In 22 states, public-sector unions can force non-members to pay for costs related to collective bargaining and workplace representation. Janus tells Reason's Nick Gillespie he was never told about that arrangement until he saw dues being deducted from his first paycheck. He argues that forcing him to pay for a service he doesn't want provided by a group to which he doesn't belong violates his First Amendment guarantees of voluntary association and free speech (his union explicitly supports candidates in elections). "The union voice is not my voice" he's written. "The union’s fight is not my fight."

The case, writes Eric Boehm at Reason, "is best thought of as a sequel to Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a 2016 Supreme Court case that raised the same question about whether public-sector unions can extract political dues from recalcitrant members. That case ended in a 4-4 draw after Justice Antonin Scalia's sudden death left the Court with an even number of conservative and liberal members. For obvious reasons, that means all eyes in this case will be fixed on the newest justice, Neil Gorsuch."