863 F.3d 674
7th Cir.2017Background
- Wisconsin enacted Act 1, a right-to-work statute prohibiting agreements that require employees to join unions or pay dues/fees as a condition of employment.
- IUOE (unions) sued Wisconsin officials seeking to invalidate Act 1’s ban on union-security agreements and claimed the law is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and effects an unconstitutional Taking without just compensation.
- The district court entered judgment on the pleadings for Wisconsin and dismissed IUOE’s complaint with prejudice; both parties cross-appealed.
- This panel reviewed the case de novo and treated Sweeney v. Pence (challenging an Indiana law substantively identical to Act 1) as controlling precedent on NLRA preemption and the Takings issue.
- IUOE conceded Sweeney controls preemption but asked to overrule it; the court declined, finding no compelling reason or intervening developments to overturn Sweeney.
- The panel held IUOE’s Takings Clause claim was ripe as a pre-enforcement facial challenge under the Williamson exceptions and dismissed that claim with prejudice in light of Sweeney.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NLRA preemption of Act 1 | Act 1 is preempted by the NLRA and conflicts with federal labor law | Sweeney controls; NLRA does not preempt state bans on union-security agreements | NLRA does not preempt Act 1; Sweeney governs and supports Wisconsin |
| Whether Sweeney should be overruled | Sweeney was wrongly decided; should be overturned | Recent precedent remains sound; no compelling reason to overrule | Court declines to overturn Sweeney; not persuaded by dissent or close en banc vote |
| Takings Clause ripeness (Williamson exhaustion) | Takings claim ripe now because challenge is facial/pre-enforcement and exceptions apply | Claim unripe for failure to seek state compensation remedies; should be dismissed without prejudice | Claim is a pre-enforcement facial challenge and thus ripe under Williamson exception; dismissed with prejudice given Sweeney |
| Availability of state remedies / futility exception | State remedies inadequate or inapplicable; futility exception applies | State courts provide adequate procedures; exhaustion required where available | Court assumed state courts could provide adequate relief but found facial-challenge exception applied, so ripeness satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Sweeney v. Pence, 767 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2014) (upholding Indiana right-to-work law against NLRA preemption and rejecting Takings claim remedy)
- Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (exhaustion rule for takings claims; state compensation remedies must generally be sought first)
- Muscarello v. Ogle Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 610 F.3d 416 (7th Cir. 2010) (recognizes facial-challenge and futility exceptions to Williamson ripeness requirement)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (clarifies that due-process substantive‑due‑process inquiries are not proper in takings analysis)
- Forseth v. Vill. of Sussex, 199 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2000) (identifies Wisconsin state-court review mechanisms as potential adequate remedies for takings claims)