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

File v. Hickey

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 03:18, 29 August 2023 by Janie Valentine (contribs) (Text replacement - "Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-present" to "Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-2023")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
File v. Hickey
Case number: 22-95
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: July 25, 2019
District court decision:
June 29, 2020
Appeals court decision:
April 29, 2022
Supreme Court decision:
Jan. 23, 2023
District court outcome
The district court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim.
Appeals court outcome
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
Supreme Court outcome
Certiorari denied.

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.

File v. Hickey was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on April 29, 2022. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin's June 2020 dismissal of the case. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied review of the case on January 23, 2023.[1][2][3][4][5]

In light of the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in July 2019 challenging the constitutionality of the State Bar of Wisconsin's membership and fee requirements. In Janus, the high court held that public-sector unions cannot require non-members to pay fees to support unions' non-political activities.[6][7]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Schuyler File, a Wisconsin attorney. The defendants were the president and executive director of the State Bar of Wisconsin and the members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in their official capacities.
  • The issue: In light of Janus v AFSCME, do the State Bar of Wisconsin's membership and fee requirements violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
  • The presiding judges: Judge Lynn Adelman presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge panel—Chief Judge Diane Sykes and Judges Diane Wood and David Hamilton—presided over the case in the Seventh Circuit.
  • The outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin's dismissal of the case. The Supreme Court denied review.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Schuyler File, a Wisconsin attorney. Attorneys from the Liberty Justice Center and Spero Law LLC represented File. The defendants were the president and executive director of the State Bar of Wisconsin and the members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in their official capacities. The defendants were represented by attorneys from Foley & Lardner LLP and the Wisconsin Department of Justice.[4]

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[6][7][8][3][1][2][4][5]

    • July 25, 2019: The plaintiff filed his complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging that the State Bar of Wisconsin's membership and fee requirements violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights since funds were used to lobby and advocate for specific political positions with which he did not agree.
    • November 15, 2019: The justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim.
    • November 22, 2019: Jill Kastner and Larry Martin, the president and executive director of the State Bar of Wisconsin, filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim.
    • December 6, 2019: The plaintiff filed a response to the motions to dismiss.
    • December 20, 2019: The defendants submitted reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss.
    • June 29, 2020: Judge Lynn Adelman granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
    • July 28, 2020: The plaintiff appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
    • January 15, 2021: Oral arguments were held.
    • April 29, 2022: The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
    • July 28, 2022: The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • January 10, 2022: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On June 29, 2020, Judge Lynn Adelman granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim:[3]

    “

    Recently, the [Supreme] Court was presented with an opportunity to overrule [Keller v. State Bar of California (1990)]. In Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin ... a Wisconsin attorney alleged that the State Bar of Wisconsin violates the First Amendment by charging mandatory dues. The plaintiff acknowledged that Keller was controlling but argued that Janus had eroded its foundations. The trial court deemed itself bound by Keller and noted that only the Supreme Court may overrule it. ... After the Seventh Circuit likewise deemed itself bound by Keller, the plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, thus presenting the Court with the opportunity to make its alleged implicit overruling of Keller explicit. But the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. ... Because the Supreme Court passed up this opportunity to explicitly overrule Keller, it is impossible for a lower court to now conclude that the Supreme Court has already implicitly overruled it. Indeed, although two Justices dissented from the denial of certiorari in Jarchow, not even they suggested that the Court had already implicitly overruled Keller. To the contrary, they allowed that, although Janus called the reasoning in Keller into question, its holding could survive 'on the basis of new reasoning that is consistent with Janus.' ... They also emphasized that, '[s]hort of a constitutional amendment, only [the Court] can rectify [its] own erroneous constitutional decisions.' ... Thus, the dissenters must have been of the view that the Court did not already implicitly overrule Keller in Janus.

    Accordingly, I conclude that the plaintiff’s claim is foreclosed by Keller, which only the Supreme Court may overrule. The defendants’ motions to dismiss the claim under Rule 12(b)(6) will be granted.[9]

    		”

    Appellate court decision

    On April 29, 2022, a three-judge panel—Chief Judge Diane Sykes and Judges Diane Wood and David Hamilton—affirmed the district court's decision. Sykes wrote:[2]

    “

    With [Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977)] overruled, the foundations of Keller have been shaken. But it’s not our role to decide whether it remains good law. Only the Supreme Court can answer that question. ... The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Jarchow, with two justices dissenting. ... The Court has turned away several additional opportunities to revisit Keller based on Janus—including, most recently, in two cases just a few weeks ago. ... Keller therefore remains binding on us. File must seek relief from the Supreme Court.[9]

    		”

    President George W. Bush (R) nominated Sykes to the court, President Bill Clinton (D) nominated Wood, and President Barack Obama (D) nominated Hamilton.

    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.[10]

    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.[10]

    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."[10]

    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

    Supreme Court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 PacerMonitor, "Schuyler File v. Jill Kastner, et al," accessed May 1, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Justia, "File v. Kastner, No. 20-2387 (7th Cir. 2022)," April 29, 2022
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 PacerMonitor, "Decision and Order," June 29, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 22-95," accessed September 14, 2022
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Order List: 598 U.S.," January 23, 2023
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 PacerMonitor, “File v. Kastner et al,” accessed May 15, 2020
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 PacerMonitor, "File v. Kastner: Complaint," July 25, 2019
    8. ↑ CourtListener, "Schuyler File v. Jill Kastner," January 15, 2021
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 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=File_v._Hickey&oldid=9203548"