Alabama Education Ass'n v. State Superintendent of Education
746 F.3d 1135
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Alabama Act No. 2010-761 (Ala. Code § 17-17-5) barred public employees from arranging by "salary deduction or otherwise" payments to political action committees or to membership organizations that use any portion of dues for "political activity," and it listed seven categories of "political activity" for subsection (b)(1).
- The Alabama Education Association (AEA), its PAC A-VOTE, several AEA members, and other public-employee organizations brought pre-enforcement facial challenges alleging the statute was overbroad and unconstitutionally vague; district court entered a preliminary injunction two days before the Act took effect.
- The district court found (1) the phrase "or otherwise" was overbroad (risking prohibition of private payments) and (2) the definition of "political activity" was vague.
- The Eleventh Circuit certified two state-law questions to the Alabama Supreme Court about (1) whether "or otherwise" is limited to use of state mechanisms and (2) whether "political activity" is limited to electioneering; the Alabama Supreme Court answered that (a) "or otherwise" is limited to state-facilitated mechanisms and (b) "political activity" is broader than electioneering.
- Applying the Alabama Supreme Court’s construction, the Eleventh Circuit held the Act does not reach a substantial amount of protected First Amendment conduct (so the overbreadth challenge fails) and that plaintiffs’ facial vagueness challenge likewise fails because their conduct plainly falls within the Act’s scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of "or otherwise" in §17-17-5(b)(1) | "Or otherwise" could be read to ban all payments by state employees to political organizations, even private payments (overbroad). | The phrase limits the ban to payments facilitated by state mechanisms (payroll or similar state processes); private payments remain allowed. | Held: "Or otherwise" is limited to state-facilitated mechanisms (only government-arranged collections are prohibited). |
| Meaning of "political activity" in §17-17-5(b)(1) | The statutory list is circular and expansive; the term is vague and could reach protected issue advocacy beyond electioneering. | "Political activity" should be read narrowly to electioneering (candidate/ballot advocacy) to avoid vagueness/First Amendment problems. | Held: "Political activity" (as limited in subsection (b)(1)) is not limited to electioneering; the listed categories encompass issue-based communications and other non-candidate political activity. |
| Overbreadth facial challenge | The Act reaches a substantial amount of protected speech by potentially banning private payments and broad "political" expression. | Under the Alabama Supreme Court’s construction (state-facilitated only), the Act merely declines to subsidize or facilitate speech and does not implicate a substantial amount of protected conduct. | Held: Overbreadth challenge fails — the Act does not reach a substantial amount of protected conduct (Ysursa framework). |
| Vagueness facial challenge | The Act’s definition of "political activity" is facially vague in all applications; plaintiffs are entitled to a facial injunction. | Even if some applications are broad, the Act clearly covers plaintiffs’ (electioneering) conduct; facial vagueness fails where statute clearly proscribes plaintiff’s conduct. | Held: Vagueness challenge fails — because the Act unambiguously covers at least some of plaintiffs’ conduct, they cannot prevail on a facial vagueness claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass’n, 555 U.S. 353 (2009) (state may refuse to provide payroll-deduction subsidy for political activities without violating the First Amendment)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (facial overbreadth and vagueness standards; vagueness facial challenge requires the statute be impermissibly vague in all applications)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (clarifies limits of facial vagueness challenge where statute clearly covers some conduct)
- North Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard of review: preliminary injunction reviewed for abuse of discretion; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Davis v. Alabama Educ. Ass’n, 92 So.3d 737 (Ala. 2012) (background Alabama case summarizing statutory context for state payroll deductions and earlier litigation)