The Court was interested in knowing the boundaries of National Right to Work Legal Foundation attorney Messenger’s argument—is his argument that exclusive representation by a union should be unconstitutional whenever there are dissenting employees?  That every state must be a right-to-work state, in which unions are forced to represent all the workers receiving its benefits, but may only collect dues for that representation from union members?  Justice Kagan calls this a “radical argument,” but Messenger insists that any such compulsory payments in the public sector—even for the “fair share” of representation—violate the First Amendment.