Wisconsin Education Association Council v. Walker

705 F.3d 640 (2013)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Wisconsin Education Association Council v. Walker

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
705 F.3d 640 (2013)

Facts

After Scott Walker, a Republican, was elected its governor, Wisconsin enacted Act 10, which overhauled the rights of public-sector unions. The act created two classes of public-sector employees: public-safety employees, which included many of the state’s law-enforcement workers, and general employees, which comprised all other public employees. Employees of every union that endorsed Walker in the gubernatorial race were categorized as public-safety employees. Some categories of law-enforcement employees, such as corrections officers, whose unions did not endorse Walker, were included as general employees. Prior to the act, all public-sector unions enjoyed collective-bargaining rights and were authorized to deduct union dues directly from employees’ paychecks. Act 10 left those powers intact for public-safety employees but substantially curtailed them for general employees. General employees could now collectively bargain only for base wages and could not have union dues collected through the state payroll system. While Act 10 was working its way through the state legislature, the Senate majority leader, also a Republican, promoted the act during public debate by arguing that a benefit of its passage would be to limit public-sector unions’ abilities to campaign for Barack Obama, thus making it harder for Obama to win Wisconsin in the presidential election. A coalition of some of the largest public unions in the state (plaintiffs), all of whose members were classified as general employees under the act, sued the state (defendant) in district court, seeking a judgment striking down the act as unconstitutional. Among the coalition’s claims was that the disparate treatment of payroll deductions among the two categories of employees violated the First Amendment. On this claim, the district court ruled in favor of the unions, and the state appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Flaum, J.)

Dissent (Hamilton, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership