This HTML5 document contains 173 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
n16https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n8https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/supreme-court-review/2018/9/
n15https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4262738/150/rauner-v-american-federation-of-state-county-and-municipal-employees/
n11https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
n20https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/
n23https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-1466/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n19https://www.leagle.com/decision/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n13http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/janus-v-american-federation-state-county-municipal-employees-council-31/
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
n18https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbpedia-frhttp://fr.dbpedia.org/resource/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n12https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Janus_v._AFSCME
rdf:type
dbo:Case owl:Thing dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase dbo:LegalCase dbo:UnitOfWork wikidata:Q2334719
rdfs:label
Janus c. AFSCME Janus v. AFSCME
rdfs:comment
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, _ US _ (2018) est une jurisprudence du droit du travail aux États-Unis, concernant le droit des syndicats à percevoir des cotisations auprès de non-membres afin de conduire des négociations collectives. En vertu de la Loi Taft-Hartley de 1947, ces accords de sécurité peuvent être autorisé par la loi d'un État. Janus v. AFSCME remet en question leur légalité. Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), abbreviated Janus v. AFSCME, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on US labor law, concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overturning the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.
foaf:name
Mark Janus v.American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees,Council 31, et al.
dcterms:subject
dbc:United_States_labor_case_law dbc:American_Federation_of_State,_County_and_Municipal_Employees dbc:United_States_public_employment_trade_union_case_law dbc:2018_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court
dbo:wikiPageID
56693346
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1121053667
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit dbc:United_States_labor_case_law dbr:Illinois_Policy_Institute dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Roberts_Court dbr:Union_dues dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:United_States_labor_law dbr:Antonin_Scalia dbr:AFSCME_Council_31 dbr:US_Supreme_Court dbc:American_Federation_of_State,_County_and_Municipal_Employees dbr:Friedrichs_v._California_Teachers_Ass'n dbr:N.D._Ill. dbr:Samuel_Alito dbr:F.3d dbr:American_Federation_of_State,_County,_and_Municipal_Employees dbr:American_Federation_of_State,_County_and_Municipal_Employees dbr:US_labor_law dbr:Union_security_agreements dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Western_District_of_Wisconsin dbr:Labor_unions dbr:British_Journal_of_American_Legal_Studies dbr:Service_Employees_International_Union dbr:Harvard_Law_Review dbr:SCOTUSblog dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment dbc:United_States_public_employment_trade_union_case_law dbr:Conservative_think_tank dbr:Fair-share_agreement dbr:Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States dbr:National_Right_to_Work_Legal_Defense_Foundation dbr:National_Labor_Relations_Act_of_1935 dbr:Knick_v._Township_of_Scott,_Pennsylvania dbr:Clarence_Thomas dbr:Labor_Management_Relations_Act_of_1947 dbr:National_Institute_of_Family_and_Life_Advocates_v._Becerra dbr:Writ_of_certiorari dbr:Knox_v._Service_Employees_International_Union,_Local_1000 dbr:Certiorari dbr:Supreme_Court_Review dbr:Marquez_v._Screen_Actors_Guild_Inc. dbc:2018_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Bruce_Rauner dbr:List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States dbr:Cato_Supreme_Court_Review dbr:Illinois dbr:Harris_v._Quinn dbr:Free_rider_problem dbr:Abood_v._Detroit_Board_of_Education dbr:Standing_(law) dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_Illinois dbr:Collective_bargaining dbr:Child_support dbr:Franchise_Tax_Board_of_California_v._Hyatt_(2019) dbr:Trade_union dbr:Whittaker_Chambers dbr:L._Ed._2d dbr:Public_sector dbr:Neil_Gorsuch dbr:Collective_agreement dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbc:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law dbr:Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc. dbr:Elena_Kagan
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n8:2018-cato-supreme-court-review-7.pdf%7C n12:16-1466_2b3j.pdf n13: n15: n16:LSB10174.pdf n18:16-1466 n19:infco20170321120 n20:171-204_Online.pdf%7C n23:
owl:sameAs
n11:4hCxK dbpedia-fr:Janus_c._AFSCME wikidata:Q50638467
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Reflist dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Ussc dbt:Bluebook_journal dbt:SCOTUS_oral_arguments dbt:Portal_bar dbt:US1stAmendment dbt:Cite_book dbt:Cite_journal dbt:Sourcelist_unions
dbp:dissent
Sotomayor Kagan
dbp:docket
10 11 14 16
dbp:joindissent
Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
dbp:joinmajority
Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Gorsuch
dbp:lawsapplied
dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
dbp:oyez
n18:16-1466
dbp:parallelcitations
172800.0
dbp:prior
25920.0
dbp:uspage
___
dbp:usvol
585
dbp:arguedate
0001-02-26
dbp:argueyear
2018
dbp:case
Janus v. AFSCME,
dbp:decidedate
0001-06-27
dbp:decideyear
2018
dbp:first
Benjamin I. Eugene David F. William
dbp:fullname
Mark Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al.
dbp:holding
No public-sector employees who have refused membership in trade unions may be compelled to pay union dues to said unions because of the benefits that they may receive from their collective bargaining. When applied to public-sector workers, "fair share" agreements violate the First Amendment protections of both free association and free speech.
dbp:justia
n23:
dbp:last
Baude Sachs Volokh Forte
dbp:litigants
Janus v. AFSCME
dbp:majority
Alito
dbp:otherSource
Supreme Court
dbp:otherUrl
n12:16-1466_2b3j.pdf
dbp:page
171 552 1046 ___
dbp:title
The Supreme Court, 2017 Term — Comment: Compelled Subsidies and the First Amendment To Speak or Not to Speak, That Is Your Right: Janus v. AFSCME Agency Fees and the First Amendment
dbp:url
https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/171-204_Online.pdf| year=Nov. 2018 https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/supreme-court-review/2018/9/2018-cato-supreme-court-review-7.pdf| year=2018 https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/171-204_Online.pdf| year=Feb. 2018
dbp:volume
585 132 131 564 573 2017 578
dbp:year
2018 2016 2011 2014
dbo:abstract
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, _ US _ (2018) est une jurisprudence du droit du travail aux États-Unis, concernant le droit des syndicats à percevoir des cotisations auprès de non-membres afin de conduire des négociations collectives. En vertu de la Loi Taft-Hartley de 1947, ces accords de sécurité peuvent être autorisé par la loi d'un État. Janus v. AFSCME remet en question leur légalité. Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), abbreviated Janus v. AFSCME, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on US labor law, concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overturning the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.
dbp:el
no
dbp:journal
dbr:Harvard_Law_Review dbr:Cato_Supreme_Court_Review
dbp:overturnedPreviousCase
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Janus_v._AFSCME?oldid=1121053667&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
25868
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Janus_v._AFSCME