Full-Service Law Firm solving complex challenges through bold thinking, precise execution, and shared purpose.

Full Service Law Firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Specializing in the Intersection of Business &amp; Government

Meet our team of trusted advisors, strategic thinkers, and community builders dedicated to client success.

Learn about our full-service legal and business solutions, designed to address complex challenges for leading organizations across industries.

Access thought leadership, news, and resources to stay informed about the latest trends, legal developments, and industry innovations.

Discover how partnership, bold thinking, and precise execution drive results for clients nationwide.

Explore how our national reach and local expertise support clients across the United States and beyond.

Grow at a firm designed to bring out your best.

On July 29, 2026, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued its long-awaited decision in Abbotsford Education Association v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, reversing the Dane County Circuit Court's 2024 ruling that had declared significant portions of Act 10 unconstitutional.<a href="#_ftn1" id="_ftnref1">[1]</a> In doing so, the court has preserved the status quo that Wisconsin public employers, including municipalities, technical colleges, school districts, and other governmental entities, have operated under for more than a decade.

core/paragraph

While the decision represents a significant victory for supporters of Act 10, it almost certainly does not mark the end of the litigation. The parties challenging the law are expected to seek review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, ensuring that Act 10 will remain at the center of public-sector labor relations debates into the upcoming 2026 elections and for the foreseeable future.

core/heading

Enacted in 2011, Act 10 reshaped labor relations for most Wisconsin public employers.<a href="#_ftn2" id="_ftnref2">[2]</a> The legislation was adopted at a time Wisconsin and its local governmental units faced severe fiscal pressures and significant budget deficits, but limited options to control spending under existing collective bargaining frameworks.&nbsp; In addition, current law then provided for mandatory public interest arbitration which led to continuing upward wage and benefit costs well above inflation rates. &nbsp;Against that backdrop, Act 10 was intended to provide public employers greater flexibility to manage labor costs and address mounting budgetary challenges, <a href="#_ftn3" id="_ftnref3">[3]</a> and relief to Wisconsin taxpayers.

Act 10 limited collective bargaining for most public employees solely to base wages, imposed annual recertification requirements for unions, prohibited payroll deduction of union dues for most bargaining units, and expanded management's ability to make unilateral decisions regarding compensation, benefits, scheduling, and workplace policies.<a href="#_ftn4" id="_ftnref4">[4]</a>

For many public employers, Act 10 ushered in a new era of operational flexibility and budget predictability. Colleges, municipalities, school districts, and other governmental entities gained greater control over employee benefits, retirement contributions, leave policies, and other workplace matters that had previously been subject to collective bargaining. Supporters of the law have long credited these changes with helping public employers address budget shortfalls, avoid layoffs and furloughs, and better align labor costs with available public revenues in the years following the recession.<a href="#_ftn5" id="_ftnref5">[5]</a>&nbsp; The MacIver Institute estimates that Act 10 has saved Wisconsin taxpayers in excess of $35 billion in lower taxes and higher service levels.

The current litigation focused on Act 10's distinction between "general employees" and certain "public safety employees."<a href="#_ftn6" id="_ftnref6">[6]</a> The plaintiffs argued that there was no rational basis for preserving broader collective bargaining rights for some public safety employees, such as police officers and firefighters, while restricting those rights for other public safety employees.<a href="#_ftn7" id="_ftnref7">[7]</a>

In December, 2024, the Dane County Circuit Court agreed with that argument and struck down numerous provisions of Act 10 and related legislation. The ruling raised substantial uncertainty for public employers across Wisconsin, many of whom began evaluating what a return to pre-Act 10 labor relations could mean for their operations and budgets.&nbsp; The decision was appealed.

The Court of Appeals Reaffirms More Than a Decade of Precedent

The Court of Appeals rejected the circuit court's analysis and concluded that Act 10 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Wisconsin Constitution.<a href="#_ftn8" id="_ftnref8">[8]</a> The court held that the Legislature had a rational basis for creating separate classifications of employees and cited to long-standing precedent that courts must defer to legislative policy choices so long as some rational basis exists for the Legislature’s action. <a href="#_ftn9" id="_ftnref9">[9]</a>

Importantly, the court relied heavily on two earlier decisions that had already upheld Act 10 against constitutional challenges:

Wisconsin Education Association Council v. Walker, 705 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2013), in which the federal Seventh Circuit upheld Act 10 under the federal Constitution.

core/list-item

Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Walker, 2014 WI 99, in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld Act 10 against multiple constitutional challenges.

core/list

The Court of Appeals emphasized that Wisconsin's equal protection guarantees are generally interpreted consistently with federal equal protection principles and found it significant that both federal and state courts had repeatedly upheld Act 10 over the past fifteen years.<a href="#_ftn10" id="_ftnref10">[10]</a>

In her concurring opinion, Judge Grogan concurred in full but wrote separately to observe that the timing of the lawsuit—filed roughly twelve years after the Seventh Circuit's WEAC decision—appeared to be an attempt to relitigate an already-rejected argument merely because the composition of the Wisconsin Supreme Court had changed and cautioned against using the judiciary to advance political agendas.

A dissenting opinion, written by Judge Neubauer, argued that Wisconsin's five-factor rational basis test should have governed this equal protection challenge and that the Legislature's classification fails that test.&nbsp;The dissent further concluded that neither Madison Teachers nor WEAC is controlling.&nbsp;

For Wisconsin’s public employers, the immediate practical impact of the Court of Appeals’ decision is straightforward: nothing changes today. he decision leaves in place the labor relations framework that many public employers have relied upon since 2011. As a result, for most public sector employees, employers may continue to:

Bargain only over the limited subjects authorized by Act 10 for most public-sector bargaining units.

Exercise broad managerial authority over employee benefits, retirement contributions, leave programs, scheduling, workload assignments, and many other employment matters.

Operate without annual negotiations over many of the terms and conditions of employment that existed before Act 10.

Continue long-term budget planning within the labor relations structure that has existed for more than a decade.

The decision avoids the uncertainty that would have accompanied a sudden return to broader collective bargaining obligations. Many public employers had expressed concern that overturning Act 10 could significantly increase labor costs, administrative burdens, and bargaining obligations and require substantial tax increases.<a href="#_ftn11" id="_ftnref11">[11]</a>

Although the Court of Appeals decision is significant, this decision is unlikely to be the final word.The plaintiffs are expected to seek review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and we anticipate the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case.&nbsp; Recall also that recently elected Supreme Court members have even campaigned that Act 10 should be struck down. For public employers, that means continued uncertainty regarding Act 10's long-term future. While the law remains fully in effect today, the litigation is likely to continue into 2027.

Even if Act 10 ultimately survives judicial review, public employers should continue monitoring developments in Madison.

Act 10 has increasingly become an issue in statewide political campaigns. Following the Court of Appeals decision, multiple reports noted that Democratic candidates for governor have pledged to repeal Act 10 if elected, potentially shifting the debate from the courthouse back to the Legislature.<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a>

Whether through continued litigation, legislative proposals, or future elections, Act 10 is likely to remain a central issue in Wisconsin public-sector labor relations for years to come.

Michael Best will continue to monitor developments in this matter and provide updates as the litigation and related legislative discussions progress.

core/separator

<a href="#_ftnref1" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> Abbotsford Educ. Ass'n v. Wis. Emp. Rels. Comm'n, No. 2024AP2429, ¶¶ 1-4 (Wis. Ct. App. July 29, 2026).

<a href="#_ftnref2" id="_ftn2">[2]</a> <a href="https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/10">2011 Wis. Act 10</a>; Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Walker, 2014 WI 99, ¶¶ 3-7, 358 Wis. 2d 1, 851 N.W.2d 337.

<a href="#_ftnref3" id="_ftn3">[3]</a> Madison Teachers, 2014 WI 99, ¶ 82 (recognizing that Act 10's classification scheme "rationally advances the legislative purpose of improving Wisconsin's fiscal health through enhanced control over public expenditures").

<a href="#_ftnref4" id="_ftn4">[4]</a> Wis. Educ. Ass'n Council v. Walker, 705 F.3d 640, 643-45 (7th Cir. 2013).

<a href="#_ftnref5" id="_ftn5">[5]</a> Abbotsford Educ. Ass'n, No. 2024AP2429, ¶¶ 46, 49; Madison Teachers, 2014 WI 99, ¶¶ 82-85.

<a href="#_ftnref6" id="_ftn6">[6]</a> Abbotsford Educ. Ass'n, No. 2024AP2429, ¶¶ 39-45.

<a href="#_ftnref7" id="_ftn7">[7]</a> Id. ¶¶ 9-10

<a href="#_ftnref8" id="_ftn8">[8]</a> Id. ¶¶ 48-51.

<a href="#_ftnref9" id="_ftn9">[9]</a> Id. ¶¶ 41-45, 50.

<a href="#_ftnref10" id="_ftn10">[10]</a> Id. ¶¶ 37-39, 48-49.

[<a href="#_ftn11">11</a>] League of Wis. Municipalities Amicus Curiae Br. at 9-14, Abbotsford Educ. Ass'n v. Wis. Emp. Rels. Comm'n, No. 2024AP2429 (Wis. Ct. App. July 1, 2025).

[<a href="#_ftn12" type="internal" id="#_ftn12">12</a>] Scott Bauer, <a href="https://fox11online.com/news/state/wisconsin-appeals-court-overturns-ruling-restoring-collective-bargaining-power-act-10-union-protests-public-employees">Wisconsin appeals court overturns ruling that had restored collective bargaining power</a>, Fox 11 News (July 29, 2026).

Business professionals walking through a modern office space and ascending stairs during a busy workday.

Business professionals walking through a modern office space and ascending stairs.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals Upholds Act 10, Preserving Longstanding Public-Sector Labor Reforms

Related People

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

Beightol Quoted in Bloomberg Law News Article, “Bipartisan Bill to Accelerate Labor Contracts Roils Employers”

Small Business Reorganization Act Update: Senate Passes S. 3977 to Restore $7.5 Million Subchapter V Debt Limit

Trademark Watch Notices: When Should Brand Owners Take Action?