The Communications Workers of America v. Beck case in 1987 revolved around the issue of union dues and their use for political purposes. The plaintiffs, non-union members who were still required to pay agency fees to the union as a condition of their employment, argued that using these funds for political contributions violated their First Amendment rights. They contended that they should only be obligated to cover costs directly related to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Beck and his co-plaintiffs by declaring it unconstitutional for unions to fund political activities with fees collected from non-consenting employees. This landmark decision established what is now known as the "Beck Rights," which allow workers not wishing to join a union but compelled under an agency shop arrangement only have to pay those dues necessary for representation regarding terms and conditions of employment.

In the dissenting opinion for Communications Workers of America v. Beck, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was incorrect and inconsistent with past precedent. He contended that Congress intended to allow unions to use agency shop fees for political purposes when it passed amendments to NLRA in 1947. This is because these activities are part of a union’s broader efforts to advance its members' interests collectively. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on private sector labor law principles as inappropriate given their different contexts and objectives compared with public sector labor laws. Lastly, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on unions’ ability to effectively represent their members due to reduced funding from agency shop fees if they cannot be used for political purposes.