Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Scott Walker
839 N.W.2d 388
Wis.2013Background
- MTI plaintiffs sought a declaration that portions of 2011 Wis. Acts 10 and 32 violated the Wisconsin Constitution and sought injunctive relief; the circuit court granted partial declaratory judgment in Sept. 2012, declaring provisions unconstitutional but not injunctive relief.
- State Defendants appealed the Sept. 2012 judgment and sought stays; the circuit court denied stays, and the court of appeals denied stays on their requests.
- In Oct. 2013 the Dane County circuit court held the Commissioners in contempt for continuing to enforce the void provisions against non-parties and issued a purgeConditions order.
- Subsequently, the State Defendants sought relief from the contempt and declaratory judgment in this court; the court exercised superintending authority to vacate the contempt order and did not rule on a stay of the Sept. 2012 declaratory judgment.
- The dissent argues the per curiam improperly invoked superintending power and deprived unions of hearing; the majority’s action vacates the contempt order to protect appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the contempt order expand the Sept. 2012 declaratory judgment? | State Defendants argued to stay or uphold; no expansion intended. | Commissioners contended it did not broaden the judgment. | Yes; contempt expanded the judgment's scope by imposing injunctive relief against non-parties. |
| May the Wisconsin Supreme Court use its superintending authority to vacate a circuit court contempt order during pendency of an appeal? | N/A | N/A | Yes; this court vacates the contempt order to protect appellate jurisdiction. |
| Does a declaratory judgment against state officers bind non-parties and prohibit enforcement across the state? | Declaratory judgment binds those before the court; alleged non-parties must litigate separately. | Judicial decision should not automatically bind non-parties beyond the case. | Declaratory judgment against officials functions as an injunction, binding all affected parties, prohibiting enforcement. |
| Was the procedure that vacated the contempt order fair to the respondent unions? | N/A | N/A | Dissent argues the unions were denied hearing; majority did not address merits of due process concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kading, 70 Wis. 2d 508 (1975) (superintending power limited to extreme exigencies; preserve justice)
- Arneson v. Jezwinski, 206 Wis. 2d 217 (1996) (broad superintending authority; limits when no threat to justice)
- State ex rel. Reynolds v. County Court of Kenosha Cnty., 11 Wis. 2d 560 (1960) (superintending power used when no adequate remedy by appeal)
- Olson v. Town of Cottage Grove, 309 Wis. 2d 365 (2008) (facially unconstitutional statute has injunctive effect; always unconstitutional)
- Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (declaratory relief in government context is the equivalent of injunction)
- State v. Konrath, 218 Wis. 2d 290 (1998) (statutory limits on enforcement when declaratory judgments render provisions void)
- Helgeland v. Wisconsin Municipalities, 2008 WI 9 (2008) (declaratory judgments bind broadly; efficiency and practicality considerations)