William Martin Conley

The case concerned a constitutional challenge by several Wisconsin public employee unions to provisions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10, which divided public employees into “general” and “public safety” categories. The law preserved full unionization, collective bargaining, and dues collection rights for public safety employees and their unions while sharply limiting those rights for general employees, including by restricting bargaining to base wages only, requiring annual recertification by an absolute majority of members, and banning automatic dues deductions from paychecks. Plaintiffs argued that the distinctions violated the Equal Protection Clause and that the dues-withholding ban also violated the First Amendment. The court granted judgment to the defendants on the Equal Protection claims attacking the core limits on collective bargaining rights, finding a rational basis for those restrictions, but granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the recertification and dues-withholding provisions. It held that the state had no rational basis, consistent with the First Amendment, for extending automatic certification and dues deductions to favored public safety unions while denying them to general employee unions.

labor & employmentfree speechcivil rights

This case is a patent infringement lawsuit in which Douglas Dynamics alleges that Buyers Products' snowplow assemblies infringe five of its patents related to mounting systems and hydraulic/electrical components. On summary judgment motions addressing invalidity, the court granted Douglas's motion and denied Buyers' as to the '978 patent, finding no anticipation by a single prior art reference and no obviousness from combinations of prior art. The court denied Buyers' motion as to the '530 patent due to remaining genuine issues of material fact on invalidity. As to the '480 patent, the court granted Douglas's motion because Buyers provided no supporting evidence. For the '700 patent, the court denied both parties' motions and dismissed the invalidity counterclaim without prejudice, citing its prior finding of noninfringement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a patent infringement dispute in which Douglas Dynamics alleged that Buyers Products' SnowDogg snowplow assemblies infringed five of Douglas's patents covering snowplow mounting mechanisms, hydraulic systems, and headlight systems. Buyers denied infringement and asserted invalidity counterclaims. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted Douglas's motion as to literal infringement of the '530 and '978 patents, granted Buyers' motion as to noninfringement of the '480 and '700 patents, and denied both motions as to the '935 patent, which remains for trial. The rulings followed prior claim construction and rested on whether each asserted claim element was present in the accused products, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a challenge by the Freedom From Religion Foundation and two of its members to a U.S. House concurrent resolution directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance and National Motto in the Capitol Visitor Center, claiming the action violated the Establishment Clause. The plaintiffs asserted standing based solely on their status as federal taxpayers. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of Article III standing, reasoning that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the narrow Flast v. Cohen exception to the general bar on taxpayer standing because the resolution did not involve a specific congressional appropriation or exercise of taxing and spending power under Article I, Section 8, and any requested relief would not redress the alleged injury. The analysis drew on Supreme Court precedents including Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation and Seventh Circuit cases applying those standards.

religious libertyfederal powerprocedure

This case involved Wenfang Liu suing her ex-husband Timothy Mund to enforce an I-864 affidavit of support that he signed as part of her immigration application, in which he promised to maintain her at 125% of the federal poverty level under 8 U.S.C. § 1183a. After the couple married in China, obtained Liu's U.S. residency, moved to the United States, and then divorced, Liu sought monetary damages and ongoing support when Mund stopped providing assistance. The court denied Mund's late motion to amend his answer to add contract defenses due to undue delay and prejudice, granted Liu partial summary judgment on her damages claim after finding most facts undisputed and the affidavit created an enforceable federal obligation separate from the divorce proceedings, and ordered Mund to pay $10,394.74 while denying specific performance of future support pending further filings on Liu's income and mitigation efforts.

immigrationfamily lawprocedure

The case involved Cory Goecks suing Sheriff Scott Pedley under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating his constitutional liberty interest by making stigmatizing statements in an exit review memo that hindered his future employment in law enforcement. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the statements were made long after Goecks' resignation and thus were not incident to the termination of employment, as required to establish a liberty interest claim under Supreme Court precedent in Siegert v. Gilley.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves Susan Blue, an administrative assistant for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers—Local 159, who sued her employer for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 after she questioned whether the union's business manager had denied membership to a Black applicant on racial grounds. Blue alleged that following this protected activity, her manager became hostile, sought ways to fire her, and imposed adverse employment actions. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing insufficient evidence of retaliation. The court denied the motion, finding that Blue had presented evidence creating genuine issues of material fact as to whether the adverse actions were caused by her opposition to alleged racial discrimination rather than other factors.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In this case, judicial candidate Joel Winnig sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 60.06(4) violated his First Amendment free speech and association rights by barring him from personally soliciting campaign contributions needed to qualify for public financing in his bid for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He sought a temporary restraining order to prevent enforcement of the rule during the qualification period starting July 1, 2010. The court denied the motion for a TRO. It relied on the recent Seventh Circuit decision in Siefert v. Alexander, which upheld the rule as constitutional for judicial candidates because it prevents corruption and preserves impartiality without unduly restricting speech. The court further noted that Winnig had not shown irreparable harm, as he could use other fundraising methods like a campaign committee, and that granting relief would harm the public interest in judicial integrity.

free speechelections

In this prisoner civil rights case, Terry Jackson, a Muslim inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution, sued multiple prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, alleging that defendants violated his rights by prohibiting him from performing salah (prayer) while working in the prison kitchen and by issuing false conduct reports in retaliation for his grievances. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on Jackson's Free Exercise, Equal Protection, and most retaliation claims, as well as his request for injunctive relief under RLUIPA, which was deemed moot because Jackson no longer worked in food services and monetary damages are unavailable under the statute. It denied summary judgment only on the retaliation claim against defendants Lind and Meier, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to their personal involvement. The Free Exercise claim failed due to qualified immunity, as the policy's unconstitutionality was not clearly established, while the Equal Protection claim lacked evidence of differential treatment compared to other religions, and most retaliation claims lacked evidence linking actions to Jackson's grievances.

religious libertycivil rightscriminal law

The case concerned whether the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association violated the First or Fourteenth Amendment rights of Gannett Co. and the Wisconsin Newspaper Association by granting American Hi-Fi an exclusive license to stream internet video of WIAA-sponsored high school tournament events. The court entered declaratory judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that the exclusive license did not infringe those constitutional rights. The decision rested on findings that the tournament events were not public forums, that WIAA's action was a commercial choice to maximize revenue rather than an effort to suppress speech or favor viewpoints, and that newspapers remained free to report on, comment about, and provide limited coverage of the events while the public retained access to streams of games not produced by the licensee.

free speechcivil rightsbusiness & regulatory