In the 1964 case of Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees v. Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a union's right to negotiate and enforce "union shop" agreements with employers. The court held that such agreements were not only permissible under federal labor law but also did not violate non-members' First Amendment rights. This decision came after an association representing non-contract employees challenged these practices as unconstitutional forced association and compelled speech. However, Justice Hugo Black wrote for a unanimous court that while individuals have a constitutional right to associate or not associate with others as they choose, this does not extend to prohibiting unions from negotiating contracts requiring all workers who benefit from their representation to share in its costs.

In the dissenting opinion for Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees v. Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees (1964), Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow a union to charge non-members fees was an overreach and violated principles of freedom of association. He contended that while unions have a legitimate interest in preventing "free riders" who benefit from collective bargaining without paying dues, this concern should not override individual rights. Harlan believed that compulsory fees could be used as a tool by unions to suppress dissent and force compliance with their policies. Furthermore, he expressed concerns about potential abuse if unions were allowed unchecked power to levy assessments on non-members without any form of accountability or oversight.