Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Sweeney v. Raoul

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Sweeney v. Raoul
Case number: 1:18-cv-01362
Status: Pending
Important dates
Filed: February 22, 2018
District court decision: November 12, 2019
Appeals court decision: Pending
District court outcome
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, in part, and ruled Illinois’ exclusive-bargaining-representative scheme is not unconstitutional.
Appeals court outcome
Pending

This case is one of over a hundred public-sector union lawsuits Ballotpedia tracked following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME. These pages were updated through February 2023 and may not reflect subsequent case developments. For more information about Ballotpedia's coverage of public-sector union policy in the United States, click here. Contact our team to suggest an update.

Sweeney v. Raoul is pending before the United States Circuit Courts for the Seventh Circuit and was decided by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on November 12, 2019. The plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of Illinois’ exclusive-bargaining-representative laws for public sector employees. The plaintiffs are arguing that if states requiring non-union members to pay union dues violates these non-union members’ first amendment rights, as was ruled in Janus v. AFSCME, then exclusive-bargaining-representation laws also violate non-union members’ first amendment rights.[1][2][3][4]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs are James M. Sweeney and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO. The defendants are Lisa M. Madigan and Kimberly Stevens.
  • The issue: Whether or not Illinois’ exclusive-bargaining-representation laws violate non-union members’ first amendment rights.
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Sharon Coleman. She was nominated by President Barack Obama on February 24, 2010, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on July 12, 2010.
  • The outcome: The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, with prejudice. This lawsuit is pending before the circuit court.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs are James M. Sweeney and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO. They are represented by attorneys from the Indiana, Iowa, Illinois Federation For Fair Contracting. The defendants are Lisa M. Madigan and Kimberly Stevens. They are represented by attorneys from the Illinoi State Attorney General’s Office.[1][2]

    The plaintiffs in Sweeney v. Raoul first filed their lawsuit on February 22, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Illinois’ exclusive-bargaining-representation law and whether these laws violate the first amendment rights of those public sector employees who elect not to join the union.[1][2][3][5]

    • February 22, 2018: Plaintiffs file first set of complaints against defendants.
    • April 9, 2018: Plaintiffs file a second amended complaint against defendants.
    • July 27, 2018: Status hearing held and defendants notify the court of intention to file a motion to dismiss the case.
    • September 7, 2018: Plaintiffs file a response in opposition to defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims.
    • February 6, 2019: The court rules that the defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. In addition, the dismisses the plaintiffs' claims premised on the restrictions on collective bargaining.
    • February 25, 2019: Plaintiffs file third amended complaint.
    • November 12, 2019: Court dismisses plaintiffs’ third amended complaint with prejudice.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    On November 12, 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, with prejudice, upholding the Illinois law permitting excuilsive-bargaining-representation for non-union employees. This lawsuit is pending before the United States Circuit Courts for the Seventh Circuit.[3][5]

    On November 12, 2019, Judge Sharon Coleman dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, with prejudice. Judge Coleman wrote the following in the court's opinion:

    “ Local 150’s argument that Illinois’ exclusive-bargaining-representative scheme is unconstitutional under Janus fails… the Court grants defendants’ summary judgment motion [68] and denies plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion [66]. Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice.[6] ”
    —Judge Sharon Coleman

    She was nominated by President Barack Obama on February 24, 2010, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on July 12, 2010.[7]

    Legal context

    Janus v. AFSCME (2018)

    See also: Janus v. AFSCME

    On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 5-4 decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (Janus v. AFSCME), ruling that public-sector unions cannot compel non-member employees to pay fees to cover the costs of non-political union activities.[8]

    This decision overturned precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education in 1977. In Abood, the high court held that it was not a violation of employees' free-speech and associational rights to require them to pay fees to support union activities from which they benefited (e.g., collective bargaining, contract administration, etc.). These fees were commonly referred to as agency fees or fair-share fees.[8]

    Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion for the court majority in Janus, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. Alito wrote, "Abood was poorly reasoned. It has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions. Developments since Abood was handed down have shed new light on the issue of agency fees, and no reliance interests on the part of public-sector unions are sufficient to justify the perpetuation of the free speech violations that Abood has countenanced for the past 41 years. Abood is therefore overruled."[8]

    Related litigation

    To view a complete list of the public-sector labor lawsuits Ballotpedia tracked between 2019 and 2023, click here.

    Number of federal lawsuits by circuit

    Between 2019 and 2023, Ballotpedia tracked 191 federal lawsuits related to public-sector labor laws. The chart below depicts the number of suits per federal judicial circuit (i.e., the jurisdictions in which the suits originated).

    Public-sector labor lawsuits on Ballotpedia

    See also: Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-2023

    Click show to view a list of cases with links to our in-depth coverage.

    v • e
    Public-sector labor lawsuits
    Federal lawsuits

    Adams v. Teamsters Union Local 429 • Akers v. Maryland State Education Association • Aliser v. SEIU California • Allen v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association • Allen v. Santa Clara County Correctional • Anderson v. SEIU Local 503 • Babb v. California Teachers Association • Baisley v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers • Belgau v. Inslee • Bennett v. AFSCME • Bermudez v. SEIU Local 521 • Bierman v. Dayton • Boudreaux v. Louisiana State Bar • Boyle v. SEIU California • Brice v. California Faculty Association • California v. Azar • Campos v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association • Carey v. Inslee • Casanova v. IAM Local 701 • Chandavong et al. v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association et al. • Cook v. Brown • Cooley v. California Statewide Law Enforcement Association • Crowe v. Oregon State Bar • Cruz v. Union Independiente Autentica de Empleados de la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados • Danielson v. Inslee • Diamond v. Pennsylvania State Education Association • Doughty v. State Employees Association of New Hampshire, SEIU, Local 1984 • Durst v. OEA • Few v. United Teachers Los Angeles • File v. Hickey • Fischer v. Murphy • Fisk v. Inslee • Fizer v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees • Fleck v. Wetch • Grega v. Council of New Jersey State College Locals • Grossman v. Hawaii Government Employees Association • Gruber v. Oregon State Bar • Guppy v. City of Los Angeles • Halloran v. AFSCME Council 5 • Hamidi v. SEIU • Hannay v. Kent State • Hartnett v. Penn. State Education Association • Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18 • Hernandez v. AFSCME California • Hoekman v. Education Minnesota • Hough v. SEIU Local 521 • Imhoff v. California Teachers Association • Jackson v. Napolitano • James v. SEIU Local 688 • Janus v. AFSCME • Jarchow v. Wisconsin • Kabler v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1776 Keystone State • Wenzig v. SEIU Local 668 • Kopie v. International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees • Kurk v. Los Rios Classified Employees Association • Lamberty et al. v. Connecticut State Police Union et al. • LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council • Lee v. Ohio Education Association • Leitch v. AFSCME • Littler v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees • Loescher v. Teamsters Local 320 • Lutter v. JNESO • Mandel v. SEIU Local 73 • Marsh v. AFSCME Local 3299 • Martin v. California Teachers Association • Masuo v. AFSCME AFL-CIO • Matthews v. United Teachers of Los Angeles • Mattos v. AFSCME Council 3 • Mayer v. Wallingford-Swathmore School District • McCain v. Ventura County Federation of College Teachers, AFT Local 1828 • McCollum v. NEA-Alaska • McCutcheon v. CWA Local 7076 • McDonald v. Firth • Mendez v. CTA • Miller v. Inslee • Misja v. PSEA • Molina v. SEIU Local 668 • Mooney v. Illinois Education Association • Nearman v. SEIU Local 503 • Neely v. AFSCME Council 13 • Nguyen v. Admin. and Residual Employees Union • Nichols v. Home Care Providers Union • O'Callaghan v. Drake • Ochoa v. Public Consulting Group • Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union • Ogle v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11 • Oliver v. SEIU Local 668 • Pellegrino v. New York State United Teachers • Penning v. SEIU Local 1021 • Polk v. Yee • Popp v. ALPAI • Piekarski v. AFSCME Council 5 • Quirarte v. UDW AFSCME Local 3930 • Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine • Rizzo-Rupon v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 141 • Routh v. Inslee • Schaszberger v. AFSCME Council 13 • Schell v. Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices • Schumaker v. Inslee • Seager v. UTLA • Seidemann v. Professional Staff Congress • Smith v. AFSCME Council No. 8 • Smith v. New Jersey Education Association • Smith v. Bieker • Solomon v. AFSCME District Council 37 • Stroeder v. Service Employees International Union, Local 503 • Sweeney v. Raoul • Sweet v. California Association of Psychiatric Technicians • Taylor v. Heath • Thompson v. AFSCME Council 89, Local 4013 • Thompson v. Marietta Education Association • Thulen v. AFSCME • Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Org. • Utke v. University of Connecticut American Association of University Professors • Weyandt v. PSCOA • Wholean v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001 • Wilford v. National Education Association • Williams v. PSEA • Wolf v. University Professional & Technical Employees • Yates v. Hillsboro Unified School District • Yohn v. California Teachers Association

    See also

    External links

    Case documents

    Trial court

    Appeals court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/23772050/Sweeney_et_al_v_Raoul_et_al Pacer Monitor, "Sweeney et al v. Raoul et al," accessed September 18, 2020]
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Courthouse News, "James Sweeney, et al v. Kwame Raoul, et al," accessed September 18, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Cook County Record, "Judge: Labor union can continue suit vs state over law requiring unions to rep non-union workers," accessed September 18, 2020
    4. ↑ Pacer Monitor, "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER," accessed September 18, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named SweeneyDecisiont
    6. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ Illinois Courts, "Judge Coleman Biography," accessed October 6, 2009
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al., June 27, 2018
    v • e
    Public-sector union policy in the United States
    Public-sector union policy in the United StatesBPstarlogo.png
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Sweeney_v._Raoul&oldid=9203529"