ILNews

Judge dismisses federal right-to-work challenge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A U.S. District judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed in Hammond by a labor union challenging the state’s right-to-work law for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Chief Judge Philip P. Simon in the Northern District of Indiana did allow two counts claiming the law violates the Indiana Constitution to proceed in state court.

Simon handed down his ruling Thursday in James M. Sweeney, et al. v. Mitch Daniels, et al., 2:12-CV-PPS/PRC, the suit filed by the Local 150 of the International Union of Operating Engineers and several of its officers and members after Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the right-to-work legislation into law Feb. 1, 2012.

The law prevents forced union membership and union security clauses.

The lawsuit challenges the new law under the Contracts Clause, Ex Post Facto Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and preemption claims, and alleges the law violates the state constitution.

Simon found that Section 3 – which says nothing in the law changes or effects “any law concerning” collective bargaining in the building and construction industry other than a law that allows agreements requiring union member or payments of dues to a union or substitute payments to charities – is not a substantive provision and not retroactive.

“Because there exists a plausible public policy reason for enacting the Right to Work statute based on economic theories which the legislators may have believed to be true, and the relationship of that rationale to the legislation is not arbitrary or irrational, the Equal Protection challenge fails,” he wrote.

Simon found the union’s preemption challenges to the law and the Emergency Rule all run “headlong” into Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n, Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn, 375  U.S. 96, 102 (1963) (Retail Clerks II), and should be dismissed.

Counts 8 and 9, which claim the right-to-work law violates various provisions of the Indiana Constitution, were dismissed without prejudice to allow them to proceed in state court.

“For better or worse, the political branches of government make policy judgments. The electorate can ultimately decide whether those judgments are sound, wise and constitute good governance, and then can express their opinions at the polls and by other means. But those are questions beyond the reach of the federal court, which instead is limited to analysis of particular legal arguments that the challenged legislation runs afoul of preemptive federal labor law or the U.S. Constitution. None of the legal challenges launched by the Union here to attack Indiana’s new Right to Work law can succeed,” Simon summarized.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller released a statement Thursday after the ruling, saying, “The federal court’s decision supports the legal authority and policy decisions of the people’s elected representatives in the Legislature, and we appreciate the court’s thorough analysis. My office will continue to defend the statute from legal challenge or appeal in any future court action.”

In October 2012, Lake Circuit Judge George Paras allowed a challenge to the law filed in state court to proceed. That case, United Steel v. Lori Torres, et al., 45C01-1207-PL-71, has a status hearing set for Jan. 29.  

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT