In Harris v. Quinn, Justice Alito cast doubt on the validity of Abood. In particular, he cited several job series in Oregon and Washington that would seem to survive, only under Abood.

If respondents’ and the dissent’s views were adopted, a host of workers who receive payments from a governmen­ tal entity for some sort of service would be candidates for inclusion within Abood’s reach. Medicare-funded home health employees may be one such group. See Brief for Petitioners 51; 42 U. S. C. §1395x(m); 42 CFR §424.22(a). The same goes for adult foster care providers in Oregon (Ore. Rev. Stat. §443.733 (2013)) and Washington (Wash. Rev. Code §41.56.029 (2012)) and certain workers under the federal Child Care and Development Fund programs (45 CFR §98.2).

In other words. Justice Alito is practically begging for a suit to challenge these specific job series. File away.