He's an Illinois state government employee who didn't want to have to fork over union fees. And now Mark Janus has won his case in a big way, with the nation's highest court siding with him and handing Gov. Bruce Rauner a political victory at the same time.
Here's a quick look at the man behind Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling, which could undercut public worker unions nationwide.
SO WHO IS MARK JANUS?
Mark Janus, from central Illinois, is a child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, according to the state comptroller's website. He previously worked in the private sector before returning to the public sector in 2007, according to a website from the Liberty Justice Center.
In a 2016 opinion column published in the Chicago Tribune, Janus described his job as advocating for children.
WHY DID HE SUE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Janus objected to the roughly $45 taken out of his paycheck each month that went to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union though he is not a member.
Janus argued he shouldn't have to pay the monthly fees. "When I was hired by the state of Illinois, no one asked if I wanted a union to represent me," Janus wrote in 2016. "I only found out the union was involved when money for the union started coming out of my paychecks."
Illinois and about two dozen other states require its workers to pay the fees, even if they aren't in the union. The money is supposed to be earmarked for the union's expenses related to negotiating new contracts and handling grievances on behalf of workers, not to pay for political activity.
WHY DOES JANUS OPPOSE THE UNION FEES?
In 2016, Janus wrote that unions were not working toward making the government better. Instead, they supported candidates who deepened the state's financial problems.
"Government unions have pushed for government spending that made the state's fiscal situation worse," Janus wrote. "How is that good for the people of the state? Or, for that matter, my fellow union members who face the threat of layoffs or their pension funds someday running dry?"
Janus' attorney in court has argued that Illinois is violating the workers' free speech rights by compelling them to subsidize organizations whose political activities they might oppose.
WHO IS REPRESENTING JANUS?
The case was filed in 2015. Attorneys for the National Right to Work Foundation and the Illinois-based Liberty Justice Center have been representing Janus in his yearslong challenge to union feeds. The Liberty Justice Center is affiliated with the Illinois Policy Institute, a right-leaning think tank that once allied with Rauner, but that relationship started to crumble earlier this year.
IS JANUS ANTI-UNION?
In a testimonial published on a website part of the Liberty Justice Center, Janus said he doesn't consider himself to be anti-union.
"I don't begrudge anyone who wants to form a union, or be part of a union," he wrote. "But what is unfair and unconstitutional is forcing me _ and millions of other American workers _ to pay to advance policies we oppose just so we can serve our communities and our state."
