Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on Monday a district court ruling that Indiana’s Senate Enrolled Acts 251 and 297 violate teachers’ freedom of association rights under the First Amendment.
The court affirmed that the legislation disproportionately singles out public school teachers by requiring them to take additional steps if they want their employers to automatically deduct union dues from their paychecks, according to court documents.
In affirming the district court’s ruling, the 7th Circuit upheld a permanent injunction enjoining the state from enforcing the legislation.
Under Indiana Code § 22-2-6-2, public and private employees can request that their employers automatically take money from their paychecks for a variety of expenses.
In 2021, the state passed SEA 251, which required only public school teachers to submit written acknowledgment of their First Amendment right to refrain from joining and paying dues to a union. The legislation also required public school teachers to take additional steps if they wanted their employers to deduct money from their paychecks for union dues. The legislation required teachers to take these steps each year.
Three teachers’ unions sued the state over the legislation, arguing it violated teachers’ First Amendment right to be free from compelled speech by requiring that they adopt the written acknowledgment. They also argued the legislation violated their right to freedom of association by only requiring public school teachers, not any other public employees, to request payroll deductions for union dues.
The district court issued a preliminary injunction on the unions’ compelled speech argument but rejected their freedom of association claim.
Indiana then enacted SEA 297, which amended portions of SEA 251 that the district court found constitutionally incorrect. The teachers’ unions amended their complaint and filed for summary judgment and an order that permanently enjoins the two pieces of legislation.
The state filed a cross-motion complaint for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the state on the compelled speech claim but ruled that 251 and 297 imposed restrictions on teachers and their unions because of their viewpoint, triggering strict scrutiny, which requires the government to prove a restriction on speech is narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests, according to court documents.
The court found that the pieces of legislation were not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest and issued a permanent injunction enjoining the state from enforcing them.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the district court’s ruling. While the state argued that the legislations’ requirements are related to the state’s interest in reducing the risk of deducting union dues from teachers who don’t want to participate in a union, the appellate court agreed with the district court that the state stops short of showing how that is compelling or that the same goal couldn’t be achieved in a less burdensome way, court documents state.
Attorneys for the teachers’ unions told The Indiana Lawyer that they’re pleased with the appellate court’s ruling.
“This is an important First Amendment victory for Hoosier teachers,” attorney Jeffrey Macey said in a written statement to The Lawyer.
The Indiana Office of the Attorney General did not immediately respond to The Lawyer’s request for comment.
Arguments were held before judges Diane Sykes, David Hamilton and John Lee. The opinion was written by Lee.
The case is Anderson Federation of Teachers, et al. v. Todd Rokita, No. 23-1823.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.