Harris v. Quinn
The Court allowed a union security agreement.
573 U.S. 616 · No. 11-681 · 2013 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 30, 2014 · argued Jan 21, 2014
Unions · Labor-management disputes: right to organize
Struck down a state law
Majority opinion: Samuel Alito
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded. Harris won.
What this ruling means
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded: the Supreme Court upheld part of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, overturned or set aside the rest, and sent the case back for further proceedings that follow its ruling.
Harris was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (2014), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court regarding provisions of Illinois state law that allowed a union security agreement. Since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 prohibited the closed shop, states could still choose whether to allow unions to collect fees from non-union members since the collective agreements with the employer would still benefit non-union members. The Court decided 5–4 that Illinois's Public Labor Relations Act, which permitted the union security agreements, violated the First Amendment. A similar case was decided by the Court in 2018, Janus v AFSCME, overturning the Court's unanimous decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) which the appeals court had upheld in Harris.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2013 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Samuel AlitoWrote the majority opinion
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Elena KaganWrote a dissent
Sonia SotomayorJoined a dissent
Ruth GinsburgJoined a dissent
Stephen BreyerJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- HarrisFemale governmental employee or job applicant (Illinois)
- Respondent
- QuinnGovernmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact (Illinois)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level); Federal common law
- Struck down
- A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 30, 2014DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded. Harris won.
- Jan 21, 2014ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Indiana Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
4 other argued cases since 1946 on labor-management disputes: right to organize, newest first.
- National Labor Relations Board et al. v. Baptist Hospital, Inc.442 U.S. 773Jun 20, 1979 · 442 U.S. 773Unions9–0Unanimous band
- Central Hardware Co. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.407 U.S. 539Jun 22, 1972 · 407 U.S. 539Unions6–36–3 band
- Office Employes International Union, Local No. 11, AFL-CIO, v. National Labor Relations Board353 U.S. 313May 6, 1957 · 353 U.S. 313Unions5–45–4 band
- National Labor Relations Board v. E. C. Atkins & Co.331 U.S. 398May 19, 1947 · 331 U.S. 398Unions6–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.