Scott Walker’s defining reform just survived another attempt to kill it.
A Wisconsin appeals court ruled 2-1 Wednesday that Act 10 can remain in force, reversing a lower-court decision that had declared key parts of the law unconstitutional.
For conservatives, it is a serious legal win.
It may also be temporary.
The unions challenging the law are expected to take the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, where liberals hold a 5-2 majority.
Walker celebrated the appellate ruling shortly after it was released:
This ruling is a major win for the hard-working taxpayers of Wisconsin and the people they elect to run our schools, state, and local governments.
— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) July 29, 2026
The case concerns the law Walker signed in 2011 after a political fight that turned Wisconsin into the center of a national battle over public-sector unions.
Act 10 sharply limited collective bargaining for most public employees. It generally restricted bargaining to base-wage increases capped by inflation, ended automatic payroll deductions for union dues, required annual union recertification votes and increased employee contributions toward pensions and health insurance.
Police officers, firefighters and certain other public-safety employees were treated differently. That distinction became the heart of the latest constitutional challenge.
Seven unions and three union leaders argued that the exemptions violated equal-protection guarantees because the law divided public employees into separate categories without a constitutionally adequate reason.
Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost agreed in December 2024 and struck down the challenged provisions.
His ruling never took effect. It was placed on hold while the appeal moved forward.
Wednesday’s reversal does not suddenly change public-employee contracts or restore a law that had disappeared. Act 10 has continued operating throughout the case.
The official opinion from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals says the lower court used the wrong analysis and lacked a legal basis to overturn the law.
The majority concluded that lawmakers had a rational reason to treat public-safety workers differently because police and fire services are critical, and a work stoppage in those fields could immediately threaten public safety.
The opinion traced earlier state and federal decisions that had already upheld Act 10 against similar attacks. It concluded that the new plaintiffs had repackaged arguments Wisconsin courts rejected more than a decade ago.
The majority also stressed that judges must defer to legislative fiscal choices when a challenged classification has a rational basis. It rejected the idea that a court may substitute its own preferred labor policy for the one enacted by elected lawmakers.
That is a deferential constitutional standard. Courts applying rational-basis review do not decide whether lawmakers chose the best policy.
They ask whether a plausible legitimate reason supports the classification.
The panel said that standard was met.
It also leaned heavily on precedent. Wisconsin’s highest court and a federal appeals court rejected earlier constitutional attacks on Act 10, and the majority saw this case as another attempt to relitigate issues that had already been settled.
The Associated Press reported that the panel split along ideological lines, with two conservative judges in the majority and liberal Judge Lisa Neubauer in dissent.
Judge Shelley Grogan wrote separately to question the timing of the lawsuit, which was filed only months after the Wisconsin Supreme Court shifted from conservative to liberal control in 2023.
Grogan argued that a law’s constitutionality does not change whenever the membership of a court changes. She warned that the judiciary should not be used to advance political agendas by reopening arguments that earlier courts already rejected.
The reporting also placed the decision in the practical history of Act 10. The law survived the massive 2011 Capitol protests, Walker’s 2012 recall election and multiple earlier lawsuits while driving a dramatic decline in public-union membership.
Supporters say it gave local governments the tools to manage benefit costs. Union leaders say it weakened schools and stripped workers of a meaningful voice over pay and working conditions.
Neubauer saw the case differently.
Her dissent concluded that the law drew arbitrary lines among public employees and that the lower court was correct to find an equal-protection violation.
That disagreement previews the fight likely coming next.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is controlled by a 5-2 liberal majority. If the unions appeal, the justices could affirm the appellate ruling, reverse it, narrow it or resolve the case on other grounds.
Nothing about Wednesday’s decision guarantees that Act 10 will survive that stage.
The political stakes are just as large.
Wisconsin voters will choose a new governor this year, and all five Democratic candidates have pledged to repeal Act 10. One of those candidates, state Rep. Francesca Hong, called the ruling a setback and promised that the fight would continue:
For 15 years, Act 10 has silenced Wisconsin workers and weakened the unions that built our middle class. Today’s ruling is a setback, but it's not the end of this fight. pic.twitter.com/T96bHP3BYr
— Francesca Hong For Governor (@FrancescaHongWI) July 29, 2026
Supporters credit Act 10 with giving school boards and local governments control over benefit costs and protecting taxpayers from union contracts negotiated with the same officials unions help elect.
What are your thoughts?
Opponents say it gutted workers’ bargaining power, damaged public schools and drove a steep decline in union membership.
Those competing claims have shaped Wisconsin politics for 15 years. The law fueled weeks of protests involving tens of thousands of people, triggered an unsuccessful recall election against Walker and propelled him onto the national stage.
Now the same battle is colliding with a governor’s race and a state supreme court whose ideological balance changed dramatically after the last major Act 10 ruling.
Wednesday belongs to Walker and the law’s defenders. The appeals court rejected the newest constitutional attack and kept his signature achievement standing.
The next round may be the one that decides whether the victory lasts.
