SERVICE EMPLOYEESSyllabusvision and radio advertising, direct mail, voter registration, voter ed-ucation, and get out the vote activities in our work sites and in ourcommunities across California.” Nonunion employees were not givenany choice as to whether they would pay into the fund.Petitioners, on behalf of nonunion employees who paid into thefund, brought a class action against the SEIU alleging violation of their First Amendment rights. The Federal District Court grantedpetitioners summary judgment. Ruling that the special assessmentwas for entirely political purposes, it ordered the SEIU to send a newnotice giving class members 45 days to object and to provide thosewho object a full refund of contributions to the fund. The Ninth Cir-cuit reversed, concluding that
prescribed a balancing testunder which the proper inquiry is whether the SEIU’s proceduresreasonably accommodated the interests of the union, the employer,and the nonmember employees.
:1. This case is not moot. Although the SEIU offered a full refund toall class members after certiorari was granted, a live controversy re-mains. The voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not ordi-narily render a case moot because that conduct could be resumed assoon as the case is dismissed. See
City of Mesquite
Aladdin’s Cas-tle, Inc.
, 455 U. S. 283, 289. Since the SEIU continues to defend thefund’s legality, it would not necessarily refrain from collecting similarfees in the future. Even if concerns about voluntary cessation wereinapplicable because petitioners did not seek prospective relief, therewould still be a live controversy as to the adequacy of the refund no-tice the SEIU sent pursuant to the District Court’s order. Pp. 6
8.2. Under the First Amendment, when a union imposes a special as-sessment or dues increase levied to meet expenses that were not dis-closed when the regular assessment was set, it must provide a freshnotice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without theiraffirmative consent. Pp. 8
23.(a) A close connection exists between this Nation’s commitmentto self-government and the rights protected by the First Amendment,see,
, 456 U. S. 45, 52
53, which creates “anopen marketplace” in which differing ideas about political, economic,and social issues can compete freely for public acceptance withoutimproper government interference,
New York State Bd. of Elections
, 552 U. S 196, 202. The government may not prohibitthe dissemination of ideas it disfavors, nor compel the endorsementof ideas that it approves. See,
e.g., R. A. V.
505 U. S. 377,382. And the ability of like-minded individuals to associate for thepurpose of expressing commonly held views may not be curtailed.See,
United States Jaycees,
468 U. S. 609, 623. Close-