However, when non-members object to the use of their payments for unrepresentative purposes, most of these may be having to bear their share of union costs related to advocament activities, such as collective bargaining, contract management and complaint adjustment. In March 2015, three Illinois government employees, represented by lawyers from the Liberty Justice Center in Illinois and the Virginia-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, filed a lawsuit to intervene.    In May 2015, Rauner was excluded from the proceedings after a federal judge ruled that the governor was not entitled to bring such an action, but the case was prosecuted under a new name, Janus v. AFSCME.  The case is named after Mark Janus, a child care specialist in Illinois, who is the subject of a collective agreement. In February 2015, Illinois Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner filed a complaint claiming that fair sharing agreements were unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment`s right to freedom of expression. Recently, the NLRB made a decision, This decision overturned the decision of Bethlehem Stahl, 50 years old, who had exactly the opposite.2 , hours and other conditions of employment within the meaning of the law, „it is therefore an object of compulsory bargaining“ and the employer should not be allowed to negotiate. , „unilaterally halting compliance with a royalty control agreement.“ In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Janus` favor in a 5-4 decision and ruled that „states and public sector unions can no longer deduct agency fees from non-consensual workers.“  Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, US (2018) is a case of U.S. labor law in which it comes to whether governments violate the First Amendment when they ask their employees to pay a union fee as a condition of employment.