Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General and Rick J. Ruble, Commissioner of the In. Dept. of Labor v. James M. Sweeney, David A. Fagan, Charles Severs
2014 Ind. LEXIS 893
Ind.2014Background
- Union forma filed a declaratory judgment challenge to Indiana Right to Work Act provisions IC 22-6-6-8 and 22-6-6-10 as violating Art. 1, §21 of the Indiana Constitution.
- Statutes prohibit requiring union membership or dues as a condition of employment and prohibit knowing/intentional violations as a misdemeanor.
- Trial court dismissed most claims and granted sua sponte declaratory relief on §21 claim.
- State moved to dismiss; the court’s declaratory judgment addressed only §21, with other claims dismissed.
- Court of Appeals has jurisdiction; majority reverses the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and its §21 ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do IC 22-6-6-8 and -6-10 demand particular services under Art. 1, §21? | Union claims state demands services by requiring representation. | State argues no state demand; federal law governs representation. | No state demand; statutes do not violate §21. |
| Is the Union entitled to a facial invalidity ruling (facial challenge) or as-applied challenge? | Union seeks facial invalidity, asserting no constitutional application. | Baldwin standard; exists at least one constitutional application. | Facial challenge failed; as-applied not shown on record. |
| Does the exclusive representation/fair representation framework affect the §21 analysis? | Federal duty of fair representation could render state demand. | Union’s obligation is optional; federal duty does not create state demand. | Federal framework does not establish state demand; §21 not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. 1991) (Art. 1, §21 requires compensation when the State demands services; federal duty does not.)
- Cheatham v. Pohle, 789 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. 2003) (Section 21 requires “particular services” be demanded with compensation.)
- Sweeney v. Pence, 767 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2014) (Federal law does not require state to take compensation; no state demand.)
- Whittington v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1363 (Ind. 1996) (Interprets Indiana Bill of Rights; limits state power.)
- Meredith v. Pence, 984 N.E.2d 1213 (Ind. 2013) (Limits on state power in Article I; context for §21 analysis.)
- Baldwin v. Reagan, 715 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. 1999) (Facial challenges require showing no constitutional application.)
- Dvorak v. City of Bloomington, 796 N.E.2d 236 (Ind. 2003) (Statutes presumed constitutional; burden on challengers.)
- Boehm v. Town of St. John, 675 N.E.2d 318 (Ind. 1996) (Art. I rights as limits on state power; interpretation guiding §21.)