Sixth Circuit Upholds Michigan’s Public Act 53 Regulating Public School Union Dues
1 min read
May 23, 2013
Michigan's Public Act 53 prohibits public-school employers from providing payroll deductions to collect union membership dues from public-school employees. A group of union and union members challenged the Act facially, alleging that it violated their federal constitutional rights.
The district court entered a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Act, and the State appealed. In evaluating the injunction on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit noted that when a party seeks a preliminary injunction on the basis of a potential constitutional violation, the determinative factor is often whether there is a likelihood of success on the merits.
Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction, holding that the challengers' First Amendment and Equal Protection claims were without merit. On the First Amendment claim, the court held that the Act does not restrict speech and does not discriminate based upon viewpoint. The court also held that the equal-protection claim failed because there is a conceivable legitimate governmental interest in support of the classification barring public-school employers from using their resources to collect union dues.
For more information read Bailey v. Callagan, No. 12-1803 (6th Cir., May 9, 2013).
Topics
Featured Insights

Press Release
Oct 22, 2025
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Launches New Website and Refreshed Brand

Press Release
Sep 26, 2025
Hinshaw Recognized as a “Leader in Litigation” in the BTI Consulting Litigation Outlook 2026 Survey

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Sep 23, 2025
Fall 2025 Regulatory Roundup: Top U.S. Privacy and AI Developments for Businesses to Track

Press Release
Sep 15, 2025
Hinshaw Achieves 2024–2025 Mansfield Rule Certification Plus Status

In The News
Sep 5, 2025
Jessica Riley Reflects in a Law360 Story on Lessons She Learned as a Junior Lawyer

Press Release
Aug 25, 2025
Trial Spotlight: Hinshaw Prevails in ERISA Fiduciary Fraud Case





