After being dropped this year from his own suit challenging nonmember union fees, Gov. Bruce Rauner may not be able to curb labor’s power the way he hoped.

But the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court may.

And by accepting an identical case this week, they may be ready to hit the target Illinois’ governor aimed for.

The nation’s top court on Tuesday accepted Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a suit that alleges bargaining dues paid by nonmembers are a First Amendment violation, a year after the high court used an Illinois case to cast doubt on the fees.

Rauner’s lawsuit, which is being fought by three state employees after U.S. Judge Robert W. Gettleman ruled in May that the governor didn’t have standing, will likely revolve around the outcome of the Friedrichs case.

But until it’s decided — likely next year — that case could put the governor’s challenge on hold.

“We’ll have to see what the judge says,” said Jacob H. Huebert, senior attorney at the Liberty Justice Center in Chicago, which is helping represent plaintiffs Mark Janus, Marie Quigley and Brian Trygg in the Illinois case.

“It may well be that he would want to simply stay the case until we find out what the U.S. Supreme Court says, because the U.S. Supreme Court decision will almost certainly control what happens in our case.”

A Rauner spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment.

The Illinois lawsuit argues sections of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act authorizing compulsory fees are a First Amendment violation because they subsidize unions’ political activity.

It alleges the two defendant unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the Teamsters/Professional & Technical Employees Local Union charge nonmembers 79 and 98 percent, respectively, of what they charge full members.

“The mandatory and permissive subjects of collective bargaining under the (Illinois labor law) concern matters of political and public concern over which employees and other citizens may have divergent views and opinions,” the suit says.

In Harris v. Quinn, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemingly got close to striking down the 1977 case that allowed for public sector “fair-share” fees, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.

That decision hinged on two cases that allowed for the nonmember fees in the private sector. But the Harris majority wrote that was a flawed analogy.

“The Abood [c]ourt's analysis is questionable on several grounds. Some of these were noted or apparent at or before the time of the decision, but several have become more evident and troubling in the years since then,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority.

He specified that cutting politics out of union representation in the private sector is much easier than doing it in the public sector.

“In the private sector, the line is easier to see,” Alito wrote. “Collective bargaining concerns the union's dealings with the employer; political advocacy and lobbying are directed at the government. But in the public sector, both collective bargaining and political advocacy and lobbying are directed at the government.”

However, the court stopped short of throwing out Abood, ruling only that the class of Illinois workers in Harris challenging the fees were not full-fledged public employees, and thus should not be forced to pay.

That case began when a suburban home health-care worker challenged a 2003 Illinois law that designated a branch of the Services Employees International Union to represent home-care workers in negotiations with the state. It allowed the union to collect fees from both workers who joined the union and those who did not.

A subsequent executive order signed by then-Gov. Patrick J. Quinn expanded the pool of home-care employees represented by SEIU to include Pamela Harris, who later became the plaintiff.

A coalition of unions that included SEIU and AFSCME issued a joint statement after the nation’s top court granted certiorari in Friedrichs.

“The Supreme Court is revisiting decisions that have made it possible for people to stick together for a voice at work and in their communities — decisions that have stood for more than 35 years — and that have allowed people to work together for better public services and vibrant communities,” the statement says.

Attorney General Lisa M. Madigan’s office intervened on behalf of the unions after Rauner filed suit and signed an order to stop payment of so-called fair-share fees.

“We are optimistic that the Supreme Court will reaffirm its long-standing precedent in Abood,” Madigan’s office said in a statement.