ILNews

Attorney general files right-to-work appeal with Indiana Supreme Court

IL Staff
September 12, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana attorney general filed notice Sept. 12 that he is asking the state’s highest court to find Indiana’s right-to-work law constitutional.

The move is in response to a decision issued by Lake Superior Court Judge John Sedia that struck down a provision of the right-to-work statute. In Sweeney V. Zoeller , the northern Indiana judge ruled that the labor law violates Article I, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution by requiring unions to provide services to non-members without receiving just compensation.

At that time, the Indiana attorney general’s office called the ruling incorrect and said it would file an appeal.

Today, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said his office is asking the Indiana Supreme Court to reverse the Lake County decision and find the statute constitutional.

“We don’t begrudge the right of private plaintiffs to challenge a statute, but my office has a duty to defend the policy-making authority of the people’s elected representatives in the Legislature,” he stated in a press release.

The plaintiffs, which include the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, filed a five-count complaint in Lake County on Feb. 11, 2013. The complaint asserted the right-to-work law, codified in Indiana Code 22-6-6, violated the state constitution.

Sedia dismissed four counts of the complaint but found the provisions that bar a union from requiring workers join and pay dues, and that criminalize intentionally forcing someone to join, were unconstitutional.   
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT