Wisconsin Appeals Court Restores Act 10 Limits

A Wisconsin appeals court has kept the state’s 2011 collective bargaining law, known as Act 10, in force. On July 29, 2026, a three-judge panel voted 2-1 to reverse a lower-court ruling that had found parts of the law unconstitutional.

The decision does not necessarily end the case. The unions and public employees challenging the law are expected to ask the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review it. Until then, the limits on bargaining by most state and local public employees remain in place.

Background

Act 10 was signed by Republican Governor Scott Walker in 2011 after weeks of large protests at the state Capitol. It limits most public-sector unions to bargaining over base wages, and wage increases generally cannot exceed inflation without a referendum. The law also requires annual union recertification elections, ends automatic payroll deductions for union dues, and requires employees to pay more toward pensions and health insurance.

Police officers and firefighters were largely exempted. That difference became central to the current lawsuit. The challengers argued that the law treats similar public employees differently without a sufficient constitutional reason.

Act 10 has reshaped public employment in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Policy Forum found that the state experienced one of the country’s largest drops in union membership. The same nonpartisan research group has also documented substantial government savings and growing pressure on teacher pay.

What the Appeals Court Decided

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court had used the wrong legal analysis. The majority said the Wisconsin Supreme Court had already rejected closely related constitutional arguments in 2014. In that earlier decision, the court held that public employees do not have a constitutional right to bargain collectively through a government employer.

The majority therefore restored the challenged provisions. The lower-court decision had already been stayed, so the practical rules did not change on the day of the appeals ruling.

The dissenting judge argued that the new case raises an equal-protection question that the 2014 case did not fully resolve. That disagreement may become important if the state Supreme Court accepts an appeal.

What Supporters of Act 10 Are Saying

Supporters say the law gave elected officials flexibility to control labor costs and balance budgets. A Wisconsin Policy Forum estimate put reduced government pension costs and employee compensation at about $5.2 billion from 2011 through 2017.

Fact check: The Wisconsin Policy Forum supports the claim that Act 10 produced large public savings, especially through higher employee pension contributions. However, the figure describes reduced government costs and reduced before-tax employee compensation. It does not prove that every local government used the savings in the same way or that all long-term effects were positive.

Supporters also say the appeals decision follows binding precedent. The 2014 Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion upheld the central bargaining restrictions against freedom-of-association challenges.

Fact check: The 2014 opinion did uphold the law’s core provisions. The current challengers say their equal-protection argument is different, while the appeals majority concluded that the earlier reasoning still controls. That legal dispute remains open to review by the state Supreme Court.

What Opponents of Act 10 Are Saying

Opponents say the law weakened workers’ ability to negotiate and made it harder for schools and public agencies to retain experienced employees. The Wisconsin Policy Forum reported that inflation-adjusted teacher compensation fell after Act 10 and that Wisconsin’s pay advantage over neighboring states narrowed.

Fact check: The Wisconsin Policy Forum supports the claim that teacher pay lost ground after Act 10. But the report also notes that enrollment, local finances, labor-market conditions, and policy choices affect compensation. Act 10 is an important factor, not a complete explanation by itself.

Opponents also argue that exempting some public-safety employees from the bargaining limits creates unfair classes of workers. The plaintiffs’ 2024 statement described the distinction as unconstitutional.

Fact check: It is accurate that Act 10 treats many police and fire employees differently from teachers and other public workers. Whether that distinction violates equal protection is a legal conclusion, not an established fact. The trial court agreed with the challengers, but the appeals court reversed that ruling.

Fact Check

Claim: The appeals ruling newly removed collective bargaining rights. Misleading. The Associated Press reports that Act 10 stayed in effect while the appeal was pending, so the July ruling preserved the existing rules.
Claim: Act 10 eliminated all public-sector bargaining. False. The law allows most covered unions to bargain over base wages within limits, and many police and fire employees are exempt.
Claim: Act 10 saved taxpayers billions of dollars. Supported with context. Wisconsin Watch summarized nonpartisan estimates of roughly $5 billion in pension-related savings through 2017, but the total includes compensation shifted from government to employees.
Claim: The law alone caused Wisconsin’s union decline. Overstated. Wisconsin Public Radio reported that researchers see Act 10 as a major driver, while national labor trends and other state policies also matter.

What Happens Next

The challengers can petition the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The court is entering a period with a larger liberal majority, but ideological labels do not determine how any justice will vote. If review is denied, the appeals decision will stand. If review is granted, the justices could affirm, reverse, or narrow the ruling.

Discussion Questions

Why did the appeals court reverse the lower court?
What kinds of bargaining does Act 10 still allow?
Should police and firefighters follow the same rules as other public employees?
How should courts use decisions from earlier cases?
What is the fairest way to measure taxpayer savings?
How can governments control costs while retaining workers?
What evidence would show whether Act 10 improved public services?
Should annual recertification votes be required for public unions?
How might union membership affect wages and working conditions?
If you were a state justice, what question would you ask first?

Wisconsin Appeals Court Restores Act 10 Collective Bargaining Limits