Dixon O'Brien v. Village of Lincolnshire
955 F.3d 616
| 7th Cir. | 2020Background
- Plaintiffs Dixon O’Brien and John Cook (and their unions) are Lincolnshire residents who sued the Village of Lincolnshire and the Illinois Municipal League (IML) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment and Equal Protection violations; state-law claims were also pled.
- Lincolnshire used municipal tax revenue from its General Fund to pay voluntary dues to IML (at least $5,051 from 2013–2018).
- Plaintiffs allege IML (a membership association of Illinois municipalities) engaged in political lobbying—sending emails promoting Governor Rauner’s "Turnaround Agenda" and urging adoption of local "right-to-work" measures—and that taxpayers were thereby forced to subsidize private political speech.
- The Complaint sought injunctions, declarations, and tax refunds for compelled subsidy/association; one local ordinance adopting a right-to-work zone was adopted by Lincolnshire (later litigation addressed that ordinance separately).
- The district court dismissed the federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding the challenged communications were government speech not subject to First Amendment scrutiny, dismissed federal counts with prejudice, declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the speech at issue was government speech (IML acted as an instrumentality of its municipal members) and affirming denial of further amendment as not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lincolnshire’s payment of dues to IML compelled plaintiffs to subsidize private speech in violation of the First Amendment | IML is a private, nonpublic organization that lobbied for Governor Rauner’s agenda; taxpayers were forced to subsidize that private speech (relying on Janus) | IML is an instrumentality of member municipalities; Lincolnshire voluntarily joined and thus the messages disseminated through IML are government speech | Held: Speech was government speech (municipalities controlled the association/message); First Amendment subsidy claim fails |
| Whether plaintiffs were compelled to associate in violation of their First Amendment freedom of association | Joining IML forced residents to associate with a private group whose speech they oppose | Membership was a voluntary exercise of Lincolnshire’s expressive association/speech rights; municipality could adopt/repudiate or withdraw from IML | Held: No association violation; Lincolnshire’s membership is governmental speech/association and not actionable |
| Whether plaintiffs stated an Equal Protection claim based on being compelled to subsidize political activities while others could avoid subsidy | Plaintiffs alleged unequal treatment in compelling support of political activity | Equal Protection claim depends on underlying First Amendment theory; no viable disparate-treatment pleaded absent a constitutional violation | Held: Equal Protection claim fails as it rests on invalid First Amendment claims |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing with prejudice and denying leave to amend / Rule 59(e) relief | Plaintiffs sought leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint based on evidence they claim shows private control of IML’s speech; district court should have allowed amendment | Plaintiffs had multiple chances to amend, discovery did not change legal defect, and proposed amendments would be futile; plaintiffs had assured the court they would stand on the pleadings | Held: No abuse of discretion; dismissal with prejudice affirmed as amendment would be futile; state claims dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) (public employees cannot be compelled to subsidize private union speech)
- Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n, 544 U.S. 550 (2005) (compelled funding of government-controlled speech does not violate the First Amendment)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (government entities have the right to speak for themselves and select viewpoints)
- Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2239 (2015) (government speech doctrine allows governments to choose messages on government property)
- Board of Regents v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217 (2000) (government may use mandatory student activity fees to support a forum so long as viewpoint neutrality is maintained)
- Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (distinguishes compelled support of private association from compelled support of government)