Image 01 Image 03

Federal Appeals Court upholds Wisconsin union law

Federal Appeals Court upholds Wisconsin union law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has upheld the Wisconsin union law that was the subject of massive protests in 2011, including a takeover of the State Capitol and widespread threats and acts of intimidation.   The decision was unanimous in most respects.  The full decision is embedded at the bottom of this post.

Via JSOnline (h/t LibertyChick)

A federal court of appeals on Friday upheld Wisconsin’s law repealing most collective bargaining for most public employees , handing a victory to Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans who put the law in place amid tumult two years ago.

Parts of the collective bargaining law, known as Act 10, remain on hold because of a state judge’s ruling in a separate case, but Friday’s decision was a setback for public employees and their unions.

Last year, U.S. District Judge William M. Conley largely upheld the legislation but struck down parts of Act 10 dealing with prohibitions on government employers withholding union dues from workers’ paychecks as well as a section requiring labor unions to vote to recertify yearly. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago reversed that lower court’s ruling in a split decision Friday that upheld the law in its entirety….

Despite Friday’s victory, the future of the law remains uncertain.

A judge in Dane County in September struck down parts of the union law and that case is not affected by the federal ruling Friday. That case is now before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

The Wisconsin Attorney General issued the following statement:

Regarding the decision, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen stated:  “For nearly two years, those opposing Act 10 have tried every angle to have it struck down and invalidated.  Today’s decision by the Seventh Circuit confirms what I have stated from the beginning.  Act 10 is constitutional.  While there are no guarantees, it is my hope that this decision will pave the way for resolving any remaining challenges in a manner that supports the legislative decisions made by our elected officials.”

Local radio station 620 WTMJ has other reactions from Wisconsin politicians.

While technically a “split” decision, it was unanimous in most respects, with only Judge Hamilton dissenting “from the portion of the court’s decision upholding Wisconsin’s selective prohibition on payroll deductions for dues for some public employee unions but not others.”  (p. 43)  Even Judge Hamilton agreed that the rest of the law should stand:

Elections have consequences, as this case reminds us. Although the rationales offered for the State’s different treatment of collective bargaining for “public safety” employees and “general” employees seem flimsy to me, the highly deferential rational-basis review requires that we uphold the principal provisions of Wisconsin’s Act 10 against equal protection challenges. This is particularly true where the federal Constitution would not prevent the State from removing all collective bargaining rights of public employees. I therefore join the portion of the judgment upholding the new statutory limits on the subject matters of collective bargaining for the general employees.  For essentially the same reasons, I also concur in the portion of the judgment upholding the unprecedented recertification provisions for unions representing “general” employees, although the reasons for those provisions were not presented to the district court.

7th Circuit Decision – Wisconsin Educ Assoc v. Walker


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


MaggotAtBroadAndWall | January 18, 2013 at 4:55 pm

A tiny bit of sanity in a world gone mad.

“Friday’s decision was a setback for public employees and their unions.”

Not quite correct. It’s a setback for union bosses and their political partners. It’s a gain for the people of Wisconsin, including the public union members.

    Sometimes choice is good, while other times choice impedes the dreams of a minority interest. It’s telling how some people classify their choices.

      jdgalt in reply to n.n. | January 19, 2013 at 9:44 pm

      You’re abusing the language. “Choice” = INDIVIDUAL choice. Group processes are not examples of freedom, but violations of it.

Another small step in what will be a long battle to return to a policy of sanity.

There should be no organized labor involvement in the public sector period.

Just look at what this activity has accomplished nationwide, Great indebtedness, limits on efficiency and the big winner.. thuggery.

Henry Hawkins | January 18, 2013 at 5:19 pm

Great news. Up next, Michigan?

Thanks, Jacobson, for sharing something that will NEVER, EVER appear in the any part of the leftist-biased, corrupt MSM.

Anti-union successes in Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc., will lead to the economic successes, as are so glaringly obvious in Wisconsin in particular. Across the map, it is red states that are doing the best economically, while many blue state budgets are swirling round the toilet. It won’t be long before California and other deeply indebted states are begging for federal bailouts. It’s governmental Darwinism, wherein the Texas’ are homo sapien and the Californias are Neanderthals. California, under Jerry Brown, is displaying its inability/unwillingness to adapt.

In due time, the primacy of conservative fiscal policies will become too obvious to ignore and the American people will learn of it via the media….

Oh yeah. Never mind.

[…] you’d like to see the full Appeals Court ruling, click over to William’s post at Legal Insurrection where he has embeded the whole […]

What’s interesting is that the only points in the remaining cases all revolve around collecting union dues. It’s all about the money, not the “rights” of the workers.