Wisconsin Education Ass'n Council v. Walker
705 F.3d 640
7th Cir.2013Background
- Act 10 created two classes of Wisconsin public employees: general employees subject to new limits and public safety employees kept under pre-Act 10 rules.
- General employees face a single bargaining topic (base wages) and lose payroll deductions for union dues; public safety employees retain broader rights.
- Unions challenge three provisions: limited bargaining topics for general employees, annual recertification for general unions, and prohibition on payroll deductions for general employees.
- District court upheld the bargaining limitation but struck down recertification and payroll-deduction provisions; the court’s rational-basis analysis is on appeal.
- There was procedural motion practice about intervention by non-union employees and the state’s defense of the challenged provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payroll deduction to unions under Act 10 violates First Amendment? | Unions claim viewpoint discrimination via selective payroll deductions. | Payroll deduction is a government subsidy; must be viewpoint neutral but need not fund all speech. | No violation; Act 10 is viewpoint-neutral subsidy under Ysursa. |
| Recertification provision violates Equal Protection? | Recertification burdens general unions unfairly compared to public safety unions. | Recertification rationally related to budget and stability of representation for general employees. | Survives rational-basis review. |
| Collective bargaining limitations violate Equal Protection? | Differs between general and public safety unions irrationally discriminates. | Legislature rationally distinguished groups for labor peace and budgetary reasons. | Survives rational-basis review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass'n, 555 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2009) (payroll deductions subsidize speech; viewpoint neutrality requirement)
- Regan v. Taxation with Representation, 461 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1983) (speech subsidies may discriminate among speakers on viewpoint)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (U.S. 1985) (nonpublic forum viewpoint neutrality and subsidies)
- Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (U.S. 1993) (nonpublic forum concept and forum neutrality)
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (U.S. 1995) (limited forum funding must be viewpoint neutral)
- Pilsen Neighbors Community Council v. Netsch, 960 F.2d 676 (7th Cir. 1992) (payroll deduction program as nonpublic forum example)
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (U.S. 2000) (viewpoint-neutrality considerations in regulation)
- City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1994) (underinclusivity and content-based exemptions concerns)
- Regan v. Taxation with Representation, 461 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1983) (see above (duplicate to emphasize subsidy framework))
- Beach Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 508 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1993) (rational-basis review in regulatory classifications)