Wisconsin Appeals Court Upholds Anti-Union Law

An appeals court in Wisconsin has restored a 2011 anti-union law that banned collective bargaining rights for public employees, setting up a challenge in the state's liberal-controlled Supreme Court.

Passed as Act 10 by Wisconsin lawmakers, the bill was pushed for by then-Governor Scott Walker as a way to address the state's $3.6 billion budget deficit, by giving local governments more control over workers and the power it needed to cut costs. In practice, Act 10 required state employees to take pay cuts to keep pensions in place, and forced workers to increase their health insurance contributions. It also ended collective bargaining for public employee labor unions, although it exempted police, firefighters and sheriff deputies. 

The passage of Act 10 triggered weeks of protests at Wisconsin's state Capitol, and led to a 30% dip in union membership in the year after it was approved. An analysis from the nonpartisan Wisconsin Partisan Forum also found that Wisconsin had seen the largest decline in unionized workers of any state between 2000 and 2022. 

A 2024 decision in Wisconsin's Dane County Circuit Court later struck down the law as unconstitutional, with a judge ruling that it violated equal protection guarantees by splitting public employees into "general" and "public safety" categories. However, Act 10 has still remained in effect since then pending the appeals process, which will likely culminate in a final decision in the state's highest court following the latest decision that upheld the bill.

In its ruling, the 2-1 conservative majority on the three-judge appeals court panel asserted that the lower court had no legal basis to declare the law unconstitutional, and that the timing of the appeal was "to say the least, suspect," given that it was filed three months after the Wisconsin Supreme Court flipped from a majority of conservative justices to majority liberal. In a dissenting decision, the lone liberal on the panel accused the state legislature of making "arbitrary and irrational distinctions" regarding who gets collective bargaining rights.

In a statement to the AP, a spokesperson for the union that brought the lawsuit said that they remain confident in their case moving forward.