Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Schilling mulls a run while Rauner pushes Tracy toward Sullivan challenge
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Fund sweeps
Posted in:
* A federal judge in southern Illinois has ruled in favor of unions attempting to block Gov. Bruce Rauner’s fair share fee plan.
You’ll recall that the governor filed a preemptive federal lawsuit in Chicago to declare the employee fair share fees unconstitutional.
The unions responded to that federal suit, claiming that the matter belonged in state court. The unions also filed another suit in state court in St. Clair County challenging the legality of the governor’s refusal to transmit fair share fees to the unions.
The governor then asked a federal court in southern Illinois to take the case from the county court. That federal court refused his request today, saying essentially that a state issue belongs in a state court.
More on the ruling in a moment.
…Adding… The opinion is here.
District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Supreme Court has recognized two ways in which a case may arise under federal law. Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1064 (2013). First, a case most commonly arises under federal law when federal law creates the cause of action. Second, a case asserting only state-law causes of action may arise under federal law “if a federal issue is (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn, 133 S.Ct. at 1065; Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 312 (2005) (recognizing that “federal-question jurisdiction will lie over state-law claims that implicate significant federal issues”). […]
It is well-settled, however, “that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see also Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1993). Pursuant to the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, a plaintiff may avoid federal court jurisdiction by pleading only state-law claims, even “though certain federal questions may be implicit in his or her claim.” Doe, 985 F.2d at 911.
Here, unlike Grable, a federal question is not “necessarily raised” in Plaintiffs’ Complaint because a federal issue is not an essential element of Plaintiffs’ state-law causes of action. Even if Plaintiffs [unions] anticipated that Defendants [Rauner] would raise the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as a defense or even if both parties concede that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is the only question truly at issue, this Court does not have jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ “well-pleaded complaint” raises only state-law questions.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court REMANDS this case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The Court further DENIES as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 26) and Motion to Accelerate the Briefing Schedule
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:25 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Schilling mulls a run while Rauner pushes Tracy toward Sullivan challenge
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Fund sweeps
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rauner’s on a losing streak, of his own making.
You can stop, at any time, it’s all up to you, Governor.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:27 pm
No surprise here. But glad it’s working out the way it ought to.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:28 pm
Whew!
Comment by Anon Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:32 pm
The eventual question is going to have to be decided at the Federal level, but the initial venue is all about who brings the first suit and how the issue is framed, so this isn’t surprising
Comment by Anonymoiis Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:35 pm
I suppose his team of recent law school grads will appeal this to the 7th circuit.
Comment by Anon Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:35 pm
OW nails it. Devote some time and staff to solving actual problems, Governor, and maybe slow down this nose dive before you really hurt yourself.
Comment by Anonymiss Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:38 pm
Buh… buh… but Bruce Rauner’s turnaround agenda!!1!
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:39 pm
===The eventual question is going to have to be decided at the Federal level===
Only if they can find a federal judge who’s anti-union enough in Illinois to advance it up the ladder.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:44 pm
I’ve been successful at everything I’ve ever done.
Comment by Johnnie F. Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:46 pm
Why is he wasting state of on this issue. What ever changes he wants to labor law, will only be accomplished by our legislators, 60 30 as Sir Oswego states.
I wish Rauner would focus on items that he can actually I prove. By the way, there a lot of them
Comment by Rufus Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:47 pm
“Only if they can find a federal judge who’s anti-union enough in Illinois to advance it up the ladder.”
Well, they’d just have to hear the case on the merits. They could rule FOR the union and it would still be eligible for appeal. But finding the right district court judge and getting it up to the 7th Circuit is a tall order.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:49 pm
==Only if they can find a federal judge who’s anti-union enough in Illinois to advance it up the ladder.==
Or if it ends up with a ruling from the State a Supreme Court, if four Justices at the USSC seem it a worthy issue
Comment by Anonymoiis Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:49 pm
Oops. .. Actually improve.
Comment by Rufus Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:50 pm
spot on Rich can you break down possible federal Judges that might grab the baton ??
Comment by railrat Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:58 pm
===They could rule FOR the union and it would still be eligible for appeal.===
Or they could just say it’s a state issue, which may be more likely after today’s ruling. That could be appealed, but it would be a much harder case.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 5:01 pm
So, when’s the meeting of Rauner and Four Tops to square the FY15 budget? The governor said it would take only a day.
Fit that into his schedule anytime soon?
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 5:03 pm
Do we know anything about Gettleman, the federal judge who currently has the preemptive case Rauner filed?
Comment by Anon Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 5:04 pm
Team Rauner is getting law schooled.
I agree with Willy, this is masochistic.
I can’t wait until the unions start wondering aloud how much this is all costing the taxpayers.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 5:04 pm
And its Yellow Dog for the win….”look to the cookie,
Elaine, look to the cookie.”
Comment by Fr. Murph Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 5:16 pm
@Anonymoiis, I suppose what you say is possible but I think it’s very unlikely. The SCOTUS historically rarely take cases that they view as based on state law. It’s wishful thinking by some of the Union hating extreme Conservatives that we have here.
Comment by The Dude Abides Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 5:18 pm
Indy, “(y)ou got some ‘splainin’ to do!”
Comment by Norseman Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 5:24 pm
this roller coaster ride is going to require ice packs, look at the looong paths taken in Kentucky Michigan Indiana and “cheeseville” to bad we have so many more pending problems
Comment by railrat Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 5:25 pm
=== Only if they can find a federal judge who’s anti-union … ===
Governor Rauner asked how much they cost.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 5:25 pm
It’s rapidly becoming obvious that Rauner is more interesting in boosting his national union-busting image, than working on achievable solutions to the state’s problems. That seems to be how he is focusing his time and energy.
Comment by walker Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 5:33 pm
The federal court has just politely told Rauner to shutup. Now, can we get to the real problems facing this state?
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 5:43 pm
“It’s rapidly becoming obvious that Rauner is more interesting in boosting his national union-busting image, than working”
If that isn’t in everyone’s hindsight they aren’t following the last 2 months very closely. Rauner has been focusin like a laser to bust unions, but hey, let me tell you something. Let me tell you something. That’s makin’ sausage!
Comment by RayRay Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 5:48 pm
Basically an up day?
Comment by LizPhairTax Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 5:54 pm
Walk, I agree that national publicity has been Rauner’s goal so far as governor, but after that rush, what’s the point?
He’s not in the hunt for either president or veep. Not even close. That GOP contest is going to swamp all national political coverage in a matter of weeks, if not days, and
Rauner won’t be on any national radar.
I’m afraid Gov. Rauner is fast approaching the time that he has no choice but to begin focusing on the job he was elected to do.
Hope he likes it.
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:09 pm
Rauner may want a Cabinet spot;
“CEO”
Part of a “Board of Directors”
CEO “perks”
“Potomac Fever” remedy
Wall Street Journal interviews
Global possibilities
I mean, a Cabinet position is in the Rauner wheelhouse. The CEO Bureaucrat, name on the door, not on the Business.
Perfect.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:15 pm
I’m “bad decision” Bruce Rauner… and I have cable.
Comment by The Cable Guy Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:17 pm
I can hear Rauner asking his staff, “Are federal judges in a union? It’s the only reason he would rule in their favor. “
Comment by Sir Reel Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:20 pm
From the Tribune:
“Reacting to the judge’s ruling, Rauner spokesman Lance Trover said the “unions are clearly attempting to avoid allowing the federal courts to decide this issue,”
Jeez, stop already!
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:29 pm
So the case was sent back to state court to determine the issue? The merits of the case still need to be heard. The game will continue, but on a different field.
Not a win. Not a loss. Just moving the game from The Cell to Wrigley Field, in a manner of speaking.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:30 pm
If Rauner succeeded in everything he did up until the last election, he’s sure had a remarkable string of failures ever since.
Comment by Eugene Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:38 pm
===So the case was sent back to state court to determine the issue? The merits of the case still need to be heard.===
Sure. Keep going. It’s only money…
The Attorney General and the Comptroller don’t see the merits, but keep goin’. The losin’ streak has another chance to continue…
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:40 pm
—.,.unions are clearly attempting to avoid allowing the federal courts to decide this issue.”
Give that a close read and a think.
adverb gerund infinitive gerund.
Lot of action in all those verbs.
That’s what’s called in the business “crazy mouth.”
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:42 pm
==- Wordslinger - Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:09 pm:==
Don’t set an egg timer for when you expect Rauner to start some governin’. More like waiting for some radioactive decay to take place.
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:48 pm
Unions Win Round 1? The federal court remands this matter to the state court on a procedural basis and this is a victor. A bit of a reach, don’t you think? I am interested on how the court will rule on Governor Rauner’s substantive bold action…
Comment by Black Ivy Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:49 pm
===I am interested on how the court will rule on Governor Rauner’s substantive bold action…===
Welp, the Attorney General and Comptroller aren’t too impressed with the merits of the case, and then there’s that “following the law” thingy…
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:51 pm
== I am interested on how the court will rule on Governor Rauner’s substantive bold action… ==
My guess? They kick it saying is is an issue the legislative should address if they want change.
This is not about Illinois; this is all about the 0.1% trying to get a test case all the way to SCOTUS.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:52 pm
PC, he can run but he can’t hide.
Good or bad, fair or unfair, every governor wears the jacket for what happens during his watch. Always been that way.
He might want to start getting personally involved in his job.
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:54 pm
===My guess? They kick it saying is is an issue the legislative should address if they want change.===
I concur.
It seems Rauner has this “problem” when it comes to the legislative branch; it’s purpose, why we have it, why he needs to go through it, the role of governor working with it too…
Goin’ to court ain’t governin’
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:56 pm
RNUG should have a “like” button on his comments.
He’s completely correct!
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:57 pm
Maybe the exceptional individualists will stop their shenanigans for a few seconds and use common sense…… Nah that’s way too wishful of thinking on my part.
Comment by Jorge Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 7:18 pm
== Do we know anything about Gettleman, the federal judge who currently has the preemptive case Rauner filed? ==
Yep. That he’s a good judge. Smart, fair, careful.
Not looking so hot for Team Rauner.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 8:05 pm
The federal judge in this case, Staci Yandle, was one of the IGB Board members who handed the Flynn’s their pink slips in the Emerald Casino mess.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 9:27 pm
Re-call Rauner
Comment by What sup Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:19 am
For a guy who pays his staff a bucketload of taxpayer money, he sure doesn’t get much useful advice from them. Or is it that Rauner is so smart, he doesn’t need to listen to anyone but himself?
Comment by Aldyth Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 7:37 am
== Re-call Rauner ==
Almost impossible to do with the requirements in the current recall process.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 7:44 am
Bruce Rauner is a pyromaniac committed to rebuilding Illinois for the 21st century by burning a significant part of it down. Right now, he is discovering that he is out of matches and the building he is trying to torch is made of brick. He has the money to buy hotter fuel. What we need to do is protect our lives, our families, our communities and our heritage from his obsession.
He didn’t tell us who he was when he ran for office. Today, the mask is off. Behind it seems to be Mrs. O’Leary’s cow wearing some kind of barn coat and driving a garbage VW van.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 8:01 am
They call it forum shopping. It appears Gov. Rauner made a low percentage attempt at removal to federal court. Assuming the tactic was not frivolous and clearly subject to sanctions, it was worth a shot. From the Governor’s perspective, a federal court would be preferable because the judge would have less of a conflict of interest (ie., unions ganging up on him or her at election time) and a usually better pool of jurors, in the event the case presents triable issues of fact.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 4:10 pm