Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Monday, Mar 23, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller

* 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.

* From the opinion…

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

51 Comments

*** UPDATED x1 - AFL-CIO responds *** Illinois Policy Institute firm wants to intervene in Rauner fair share case

Monday, Mar 23, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller

* From a press release…

Illinois law forces most employees of state government to pay money to a union as a condition of keeping their jobs. Even though state employees aren’t forced to be full-fledged union members, they are required to pay fees to the union whether or not they want representation. Today, three state workers represented by the Liberty Justice Center have taken legal action to end that practice.

In February, Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner issued an executive order to stop collecting “fair share” union fees from employees of state government who are not union members. Gov. Rauner simultaneously filed a federal lawsuit asking a federal judge in Chicago – and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court – to declare mandatory non-member union fees unconstitutional. The three state workers represented by the LJC have filed a motion in federal court seeking to intervene in that lawsuit.

“The First Amendment guarantees everyone the right to choose whose speech they support and what groups they associate with. State workers shouldn’t have to sacrifice that right just to keep their jobs,” said Jacob Huebert, senior attorney at the Liberty Justice Center. “No one should be forced to pay money to a government union to keep their job. In filing this motion, these state workers are asking the court to protect their fundamental First Amendment rights and the rights of all state workers.”

The motion was filed this morning in federal court. It is available online here: https://d2dv7hze646xr.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/92-main-92-2.pdf

Background: In February, Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner issued an executive order to stop collecting “fair share” fees from people who work for state government and are not full-union members. Gov. Rauner simultaneously filed a federal lawsuit asking a federal judge in Chicago – and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court – to declare non-member union fees unconstitutional.

Government unions and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan asked the court to dismiss Rauner’s lawsuit, arguing the governor did not have standing to bring this suit because he has not been required to pay union fees.

Regardless of how the court rules on the standing issue, the three state workers taking legal action today do have standing to challenge these union fees. For years, they have been forced to pay money to a union against their will, just to keep their jobs. These plaintiffs seek to intervene in this lawsuit to make sure that their fundamental First Amendment rights are protected.

Due to the magnitude of this case, it may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court is positioned to rule that mandatory non-member union fees are unconstitutional based on of its June 2014 ruling in Harris v. Quinn, in which a home health worker challenged former Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn. In the Harris decision, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote that a 1977 decision allowing mandatory non-member union fees was “questionable.” In Harris, a majority of the high court ruled that requiring home health workers to pay mandatory union fees was a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The Liberty Justice Center is a “public interest law firm started by the Illinois Policy Institute,” according to an earlier press release.

The three plaintiffs are Mark Janus, Marie Quigley, and Brian Trygg. Janus works for IDOT, the others work for Healthcare and Family Services.

* From the complaint…

[Mark Janus] does not agree with what he views as the union’s one-sided politicking for only its point of view. Janus also believes that AFSCME’s behavior in bargaining does not appreciate the current fiscal crises in Illinois and, does not reflect his best interests or the interests of Illinois citizens. […]

[Marie Quigley] also objects to many of AFSCME’s public-policy positions, including the positions that AFSCME advocates for in collective bargaining.

For example, she disagrees with AFSCME’s negotiation of contract terms that favor seniority over employee merit for purposes of layoffs and promotions, is concerned about the effect that AFSCME’s bargaining behavior is having on the Illinois budget, believes that union representatives are only looking out for themselves at the expense of union members and the people of Illinois, and does not believe that AFSCME is acting in her best interest or in the best interests of Illinois citizens. […]

[Brian Trygg] has sincere religious objections to associating with Teamsters Local 916 and its agenda. Trygg also believes that Teamsters Local 916 harms Illinois residents by objecting to efforts by the State to reduce costs that would allow public funds to be made available for more important uses. For example, the Union resists any furlough days, despite the State’s budget issues.

Discuss.

*** UPDATE *** Illinois AFL-CIO President Michael Carrigan…

“It’s no surprise that corporate-funded, anti-worker organizations are supporting Gov. Rauner’s illegal executive order. The Right To Work Foundation and Illinois Policy Institute are corporate shell groups looking to further erode middle class economic security to boost the objectives of their benefactors. We will protect the integrity of the law, our collective bargaining agreements and the rights of all workers from these politically motivated attacks.

“The issues raised in the Governor’s lawsuit and by the interveners were decided long ago by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case called Abood. The concept of charging employees for non-political union representation is permitted under the First Amendment. We are opposed to workers having a free ride where the union is required to represent them without reimbursement for representation expenses that are non-political in nature.”

88 Comments

Confirmed

Monday, Mar 23, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller

* I didn’t notice this earlier, but Mark Brown also wrote about that new “Democratic” group which claims to have raised $20 million for state legislative races. Brown interviewed all three of the group’s publicly identified board members...

When I asked Samuel C. Scott III, one of the group’s three named board members, about whether the purpose of the organization was to back Rauner’s moves in Springfield, he said:

“It’s to give him support, yes. It’s to try to make clear some of the things he’s doing.”

I asked Scott, retired chairman of Corn Products Intl., if he had spoken to Rauner personally about this. He said he hadn’t, but added: “I know he’s talked to Tony Anderson.”

Scott was referring to Anthony K. Anderson, a retired vice chair at Ernst & Young who was identified as chairman of the group.

Anderson didn’t agree with Scott’s characterization.

“I’m not sure the governor is going to like what we do,” said Anderson, arguing that his goal is to “give Democrats cover” to take tough votes that might put them at political risk.

“We’ve talked to everybody, including the governor, about this,” he said.

A third member of the group’s board of directors, Patricia Pulido-Sanchez, who operates her own communications and marketing company, was clear about her political allegiances.

“I am a Rauner supporter. I think he’s the best governor we’ve had in a long time,” said Pulido, which wasn’t much of a surprise considering that her husband, attorney Manny Sanchez, has also been a prominent supporter of Rauner’s.

…Adding… ILGO defended itself in a Sun-Times letter headlined “New political fund isn’t ‘dark money’”…

Illinois GO is designed to help lawmakers make better decisions through research, education campaigns, and public engagement. Illinois GO is not designed to push Gov. Bruce Rauner’s, or any other individual’s, agenda, as Mark Brown assumes in his column.

As for Mr. Brown’s “dark money” allegations, 510(c)4 structures, under which donors are not publicly disclosed, is the very same design used by hundreds of chambers of commerce and trade and labor groups across the country. Is the Sun-Times asserting that local chambers of commerce or AARP or the Sierra Club need to disclose the details of their members’ dues every time the group takes a position on a piece of legislation? Further, direct contributions to independent expenditure campaigns are always disclosed, and transfers from 510(c)4 are allowed.

If they transfer the dark money to the IE account, it’s still dark money. Sheesh.

30 Comments

« NEWER POSTS