A new Illinois law that could trample the free speech rights of business owners should be immediately blocked before it takes effect at the beginning of 2025, Illinois political reform and business advocates say in a new filing in Chicago federal court.
On Oct. 30, the Illinois Policy Institute, together with the Illinois Technology and Manufacturing Association, filed a motion asking a Chicago federal judge to enter a preliminary injunction stopping state officials from executing a law that threatens employers with penalties and fines if they discuss politics or offer their perspective on union organizing efforts in their workplaces.
In the motion, the groups asserted the state law amounts to unconstitutional double standard, imposing limits on most private sector employers, while leaving unions and other groups favored by the state's Democratic officials free to politically proselytize or even organize political activism among their members and staff without restraint.
The IPI and TMA are represented in the action by attorneys from the nonprofit legal advocacy group, the Liberty Justice Center.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that content-based restrictions on speech - restrictions that apply to certain speech based on its topic, idea, or message -presumptively violate the First Amendment," said attorney Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, in a prepared statement announcing the new filing.
"Yet the state of Illinois has attempted to ban employer speech based solely on its content: speech that is political or religious. The court should prevent this unconstitutional law from going into effect.”
The injunction petition comes more than two months since the IPI and Liberty Justice Center first filed suit challenging the new law.
Dubbed by supporters as the "Worker Freedom of Speech Act," the law would ban employers from holding workplace meetings at which business owners, managers or their agents share the employers' views on political matters, public policy, religion or union organizing efforts.
Employers accused of violating the law could face lawsuits from workers or enforcement actions from the Illinois Department of Labor, which could force the business to pay fines of $1,000 for every employee allegedly compelled to attend such meetings.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, his Democratic lawmaker allies, and other supporters of the legislation say it is needed to end so-called "captive meetings" and allow employees the freedom to avoid hearing their employers' views.
The legislation was strongly backed by labor unions, which are some of the largest campaign donors to the Illinois Democratic Party and Democratic elected officials in the state.
Union officials, for instance, joined Pritzker and leading Democratic state legislators in joint statements praising the governor for signing the legislation.
Business owners and free speech advocates, however, said the legislation amounts to an unconstitutional muzzling of employers' speech, in a bid to help unions more easily organize workplaces.
The legislation also prevents employers from asking workers to help advocate for business-friendly government policies that employers may believe could help their company remain economically viable.
Similar laws have been enacted in Minnesota and Connecticut, and have both been challenged in court as unconstitutional infringement on employer speech rights. Those lawsuits remain pending.
The complaint also was amended on Oct. 30 to add the TMA as an additional plaintiff in the action.
According to its website, the Technology and Manufacturing Association is an independent trade organization that has represented the interests of hundreds of small and mid-sized manufacturers in Illinois since 1925.
In the new legal filing, the TMA said it is suing "on behalf of its members, who wish to hold mandatory meetings where political or religious matters are discussed" in the workplace.
Actual resolution of the Illinois lawsuit could take months of court proceedings or longer.
With the law set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2025, the IPI and TMA now argue the court should block the law now, and not wait for a final ruling on whether it is constitutional.
In the new filing, as in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs say the state has overstepped its constitutional limits. While acknowledging some employees may find some speech from their employers objectionable or offensive, the plaintiffs said that is not a sufficient reason to justify allowing the state to determine what an employer may communicate to their workers.
"Protecting people from hearing things that they don’t like has never been held to be a legitimate, let alone compelling, government interest," the plaintiffs said in their motion for injunction.
Further, the plaintiffs noted the state carved out exemptions from the speech restrictions for labor unions, so-called "social welfare organizations," and "business leagues."
It does not protect 501(c)3 charitable organizations, however.
The plaintiffs specifically note the law would allow unions to continue to explicitly encourage members and staff to engage in political activities and other actions to promote union politicial and policy goals, including working for political campaigns and soliciting political donations. Unions have typically and predominantly backed Democratic political candidates and campaigns.
The plaintiffs assert this amounts to the state picking and choosing which political speech is allowed in workplaces, and which is not.
The new law "appears to ... simply pick winners and losers with respect to protected employer speech - 'protecting' employees only from speech from sources of which the government has selected for disapproval," the plaintiffs say in their filing.
"... The First Amendment protects speech on 'political matters' as strongly as it protects anything, and the First Amendment prohibits content-based restrictions on speech as strongly as it prohibits anything. Illinois cannot justify prohibiting employers from speaking about 'political matters,' at mandatory meetings or anywhere else, nor can it justify the Act’s arbitrary exemptions for select employers."
The state has not yet responded to the action or the request for preliminary injunction, nor has the judge set any briefing schedule.
The case is pending before U.S. District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama.