“Supreme Court split saves public-sector unions.” That’s the headline over at MSNBC, and it’s consistent with the way that other outlets are covering the story. Slate says that organized labor “just dodged a major bullet” in a “case that might have spelled the demise of public sector unions.” Mother Jones says that conservatives on the Court had been “posed to strike a ‘mortal blow’ to public sector unions” before today’s decision. Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View describes the decision as a “miraculous ending” for organized labor that “saved unions from constitutional disaster.”

It’s true that today’s result was a positive one for public sector unions, and advocates for organized labor will no doubt celebrate the split decision. But much less was hanging in the balance than the headlines might suggest. Even a total loss at the Supreme Court would not have foreordained the unions’ death.

First, a bit of background. Laws in almost half of U.S. states allow unions and public sector employers to set up so-called “agency shops.” Employees in an agency shop need not join their local union, but the workers who opt not to join the union still must pay a “fair-share” or “agency” fee to cover their pro rata portion of the union’s collective bargaining costs. Starting with the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court has said that agency shop arrangements do not violate the First Amendment rights of public sector employees. The primary question in today’s case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, was whether Abood remains good law.

Read more at Whatever Source Derived