## Facts

- Wisconsin enacted 2011 Wis. Act 10, which significantly changed public-employee labor law.
- Act 10 limited collective bargaining for most municipal employees to base wages and imposed additional union-related restrictions.
- Act 10 required annual union recertification elections in which the union had to receive votes from a majority of all employees in the bargaining unit.
- Act 10 prohibited payroll deduction of union dues by municipal employers.
- Act 10 prohibited fair-share agreements requiring nonmembers to contribute to union costs.
- Act 10 created Wis. Stat. § 62.623, which prohibited Milwaukee from paying the employee share of contributions to the Milwaukee Employes’ Retirement System, despite a Milwaukee charter ordinance providing for city payment.
- Unions and individual plaintiffs sued state officials, alleging Act 10 and § 62.623 violated associational rights, equal protection, the home-rule amendment, and the Wisconsin Constitution’s contract clause.
- The circuit court invalidated several Act 10 provisions and held the challenged enactments unconstitutional.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted certification and reviewed the constitutional challenges.

## Issues

1. Whether Act 10’s restrictions on collective bargaining, recertification, payroll deduction of dues, and fair-share agreements violate constitutional rights of association.
2. Whether Act 10’s disparate treatment of “general employees” and “public safety employees” violates equal protection under the Wisconsin Constitution.
3. Whether Wis. Stat. § 62.623 violates the Wisconsin Constitution’s home-rule amendment by overriding Milwaukee’s charter ordinance concerning pension contributions.
4. Whether Wis. Stat. § 62.623 violates the Wisconsin Constitution’s contract clause by impairing an alleged contractual obligation created by the Milwaukee charter ordinance.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court (5–2) reversed the circuit court and upheld Act 10 and Wis. Stat. § 62.623 in full.
- The court held Act 10 did not violate associational rights because there is no constitutional right to a statutory collective-bargaining regime.
- The court held the equal protection challenge failed under rational-basis review because the legislature could reasonably treat public safety employees differently to maintain public order and continuity of essential services.
- The court held § 62.623 did not violate home rule because it primarily addressed a matter of statewide concern and operated as part of a uniform statewide approach to labor costs and retirement funding.
- The court held § 62.623 did not violate the contract clause because the Milwaukee charter ordinance did not create a vested contractual right to city-paid employee pension contributions; and, in any event, statewide fiscal purposes could justify legislative change.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional freedom of association protects the right to join and support groups and express views, but does not require the government to create, maintain, or confer statutory collective-bargaining rights.
- The state may revise or withdraw statutory mechanisms affecting union effectiveness (including bargaining scope, recertification, dues collection, and fair-share arrangements) absent a direct prohibition or penalty on association or expression.
- Equal protection challenges to economic and social legislation ordinarily receive rational-basis review; a classification is upheld if any reasonably conceivable set of facts supplies a rational justification.
- Under Wisconsin home-rule doctrine, state statutes may override municipal ordinances when the statute primarily concerns a matter of statewide concern or functions as a uniform law.
- A contract-clause claim requires a clear contractual obligation; legislative enactments generally do not create immutable contracts absent unmistakable intent to bind future legislatures, and substantial public purposes may justify impairments.

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court sustained Wisconsin’s restructuring of public-sector labor relations and Milwaukee pension-contribution rules, holding that public-employee collective bargaining is statutory rather than constitutionally required, that Act 10’s classifications satisfied rational-basis review, and that state law could preempt local pension ordinances without creating or impairing vested contractual rights.


Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Walker, 851 N.W.2d 337 (Wis. 2014)