Ivy Bailey v. Edward Callaghan
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9383
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Public Act 53 (2012) prohibits public school employers from using school resources to collect union dues for any union representing school employees.
- Plaintiffs include several school unions and their members; they allege First Amendment and Equal Protection violations.
- The district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Act 53; the State appealed.
- The court applies a four-factor test for preliminary injunctions, with likelihood of success on the merits being determinative when a constitutional issue is involved.
- The majority holds Act 53 does not restrict speech, is facially neutral as to viewpoint and union identity, and applies only to public-school employers, not other PERA employers.
- The court reverses the district court’s injunction and remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Act 53 violate the First Amendment? | School unions claim Act 53 suppresses their political speech by burdening dues collection. | Act 53 does not restrict speech; it merely governs the mechanism by which speech-supporting funds are collected. | No First Amendment violation; Act 53 does not restrict speech. |
| Does Act 53 violate equal protection by targeting school unions? | Act 53 is underinclusive and selectively burdens a disfavored speaker (school unions). | Classification bears rational relation to a legitimate state interest; it applies to all public employers’ payroll deductions except schools. | No invalid equal-protection violation; rational-basis review applied. |
| Is Act 53 viewpoint-discriminatory despite facial neutrality? | Act 53 was enacted to suppress the school unions' viewpoint and disfavors their political activities. | Act 53 is facially neutral as to viewpoint and does not target a particular viewpoint. | Court finds potential hidden viewpoint discrimination; Act 53 is not viewpoint-neutral. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, 555 U.S. 353 (Supreme Court 2009) (payroll deductions are not speech; rational basis review suffices)
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (Supreme Court 1983) (speech marketplace; not all debate is bipolar; public forums analysis)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (Supreme Court 1985) (facial neutrality and motive considerations for viewpoint discrimination)
- United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1099 v. Southwestern Ohio Reg’l Transit Auth., 168 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 1998) (motive and linkage analysis for viewpoint-discriminatory rules)
- United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (Supreme Court 1968) (government regulation of conduct with symbolic speech; consider motive)
- Ridley v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 390 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2004) (suspicion of hostility to a viewpoint and the fit between ends and means)
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (Supreme Court 1995) (viewpoint neutrality in government subsidies)
- Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court 2010) (restrictions on speech must not discriminate among speakers; impact on political speech)