H on. Sh ar on J ohn s on C olem an, ofthe Northe rnDis t ri c tof  I l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 3111 C OUN CIL 31 OF THE A MERI CAN F EDERAT ION OF S TATE, C OUNTYAN D M UNICI PAL E MPLO YE ES, AF L- CI O, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v .
P AT Q UI NN, Gover noro fthe St ate o fI l l i noi s, et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 11- CV-03203

— Sue E . M yer sc ough, Judg e.
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 24, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AY 17, 2012

B ef or e M ANI ON an d R OV NER, C ircu it Judges, a nd C OLE MAN, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  M A NI ON , C i rcui t Judge. The S tat e o fI l l i noi s, f aci ng a “si gni fi cant and unp re ceden te d fisc al d efic it,” h as br oke re d2 N o. 11

- 3111

a s er i es ofco m pensati on agr eem ents w i th Counci l 31 o f the Am er i can F edera ti on o fS tat e, County, and M u n i ci pal Em plo yee s, A FL-CI O, the e xclu sive bar gai ni ng r epresenta ti ve f or40 , 000 sta te em p loy ees . I n the agr eem ents, th e pa rties tri m m ed several hu n d r ed m il li on d oll ars i n fi scalye ar s 2 011 and 2012 by d efe rr i ng em plo yee s’ gen eral w age increa ses an d i ns titu t in g a volun tary furl ough pro gr am . Despi te these co st- saving m eas ures , th e fi sc aly ea r 2 01 2 budg etdi d n ot co nt ain s uffi ci en t appropri ati ons f orthe defe rr ed w age i ncre ase s that w er e due to em plo yee s o f14 st ate ag en c ies. A ccor dingl y, the St ate i nsti tuted a pay f re eze f or th os e em plo yee s, ther eby re pu diat i ng the ag re em ents th at the par ti es had p re vio u sly rea c h ed . C ou n c il 31 th en br ou gh t t h is s u it o n b eh al fo fi ts el fa nd the a ff ec te d e m pl o y ee s, all egi ng that the S tat e’ s ac tions vi ol ate d the Contr acts Cl ause an d th e E q u a l P r o t e c t i o n C l a u s e o fth e U. S

. C o n s t i t u t i o n, and res ult ed i n se ve ra l vi ol ati ons ofst ate l aw . Counci l 31 so ug ht a pre l i m i na r y i nj unc ti o n tha t woul d o r derthe S ta te t o pa y the wag e i nc r ea se s as they c ame due , a nd the S tat e fi l ed a m ot ion t o dism i ss al l cl ai m s. The di str i ct co ur t den i ed Cou nc i l 3 1’ s m o ti o n f or a pr el i m i na r y i nj uncti on and gr anted the S tat e’ s m oti on t o dism i ss. C o u n c i l 3 1 h a s a p p e a l e d a n d w e n o w a ffi r m.

I. Council31 i s the longti m e e xcl usi ve bar gai ni ng r epresenta ti ve f orm or e than 40, 000 Illino i s s tat e e m plo yee s i n a pp r o xi mat e l y 5 1 di ff e r e ntde pa r t men t s a nd a g e nc i es. Council31 ’ s l ate st ser i es ofco l l ecti ve bar gai ni ng ag re e-N o. 11

- 3111 3

The St ate’ s fis cal year runs f rom J uly 1 to J une 30 ea ch y ear. 1 Thu s, the w age inc reas es w ere sc hedu le d to occur t w ic e a y ear thr ou g ho u t the life of the co llectiv e b arg ain ing ag reem en ts. m en ts wi ththe S ta te b eg ano n S ept embe r 5 , 2 00 8, an d r uns thro ugh J une 20, 2012
. The col l ecti ve bar gai ni ng agre em en ts l ai d o utthe wag es f o r a ff ec te d e m pl o y ee s i n the f or m o fbas e pay ra tes , annual in c re ases, st ep i ncre ase s, an d l onge vi ty i ncre ase s. The ag re em ents al so conta i ned a g en er alwage i ncre ase sche du l e that s et a 1
. 5% i ncre ase eff ecti ve J an u ar y 1, 2009 , a 2. 5% i ncre ase eff ecti ve J uly1, 2009 , a 2% i ncre ase eff ecti ve J anuary 1, 2010 , a 2% i ncre ase eff ecti ve J uly1, 20 10, a 2% i ncre ase eff ecti ve J anuary1, 2011 , a 4% i ncre ase eff ecti ve J uly1 , 2011, and a 1

. 25% i ncre ase eff ecti ve J anuary1, 20 12. 1 Fa c in g t h e p ro sp ec t o f se riou s b u d ge ta ry sh or tfa lls f orfi s c a l y e a r s 2 0 1 1 a nd 2 0 1 2 , r e pr e s e nt a t i v e s o fthe S tat e an d C o un c i l 3 1 me ti n J a nu a r y 2 0 1 0 t o di s c us s p o t e nti al cos t- saving m eas ures . Th e p ar ti es produced a m edi ate d re sol uti on w hi ch, i n re l evantpart, l i m i ted the num ber of lay offs th e St at e c ou ld m ak e i n fis c al y ea r 20 11 in exchange f ora defe rr alo fthe gener alw age i ncre ase s du e t o the e m plo yee s. Speci fi cal l y, the parti es agr eed to defe r one- half ofthe 2% ge nera l wage i ncre ase due to em plo yee s o n J uly1, 20 10 to J une 1 , 2 01 1, and al so onehal fo fthe 2% ge nera l w age i ncre ase du e on J anuary 1, 20 11 to Jun e 1, 2011
. T his resolution saved th e State m o re than $3 00 m i l l i on i n fi scalye ar20 11. The parti es m et aga i n i n the f al l o f20 10 to reso l ve concerns abo ut the i m pend i ng budgeta rysho rt f al l s f or4 N o. 11

- 3111

Tho se agenci es w ere the Crim inal J usti ce Inf orm ati on A uthor- 2 i t y, the Depar t m en tofCor re c t ions , the Deafan d H ar d of H e a r i n g C o mmi s s i o n , th e G u a r d i a n s h i p a n d A d v o c a c y C o mm is si on, the H is tori c Pres ervati on Co m m is sio n, the H um an R igh ts Com m i s s i on, the Depar t m en tofHum an Righ t s , the D ep artm en tofHum an Se rvi c es , the Depar t m en tofJ uven i le J usti ce, the D epartm ent ofLab or, the D epartm ent ofN atural Res our c es , the Pr i soner Revi ew Boar d, the Depar t m en tof Pub li c H eal th, and the D epartm ent ofRev enue. fi scal yea r 2012
. That m eet i ng re sul ted i n a c ost
- savings a g r e e men ttha ts pe c i fi e d a g o a l o f$ 1 0 0 mi l l i o n i n tot al savings; the parti es i denti fied $5 0 m i l l i on i n cos t- savings me a s u r e s a n d p r o mi s e d t o c o n t i n u e t o s e e kfu r th e r c o mpr o m i se s th atwoul d s av e ana dd i ti o na l $ 50 mil l i o n. The bi gge st cost- savings m eas ure l ai d out i n the agr eem ent was the defer ra l o fhal fo fthe 4% ge nera l wage i ncre ase due to em plo yee s o n J uly1, 20 11 to F ebruary1, 20 12
. I n e xc ha ng e, the S ta te a greed n ot to l ayo ffa ny em plo yee s o r cl ose any f aci l i ti es du ri ng fi scalye ar20 12. A fterthi s a gr eem en t, Gover norPat Qu i nn subm i tte d a pro posed budg et fo r fi scalye ar20 12 to the S tat e GeneralA sse m bl y that “ soughtto full y fund al l co l l ecti ve b ar g aini ngc o nt r ac ts.” T he b udg ettha t pas se d the GeneralA sse m bl y, however, was m ar ke dly di ff er ent: th at v ersion of the bu d get d id n ot con tain th e nec essary app r o pr i a t i o n a utho r i t y t o i mpl e men tthe a nn ua l g e ne ra l w age i ncre ase s, st ep incr eas es, and l onge vi ty i ncre ase s due unde r th e co l l ec ti ve b ar g aini nga g r ee m en ts t o the e m p loy ee s o f 14 st at e a ge n c ies
. A fte r c u tt in g a n ad d i- 2 ti onal$37 6 m i l l i on fro m the budget byl i ne- i tem ve to,N o. 11

- 3111 5 Gover norQuinn approv ed a tot albudget of$3 3 bi l l i on o n J un e 3 0 , 2 0 1 1
. No t a b l y, Go v e r no r Qu i nn ’ s c uts ma de vi a l i ne- i tem ve to did notaff ect any a pp ro pri ati ons f or the e m plo yee s’ pay i ncre ase s; r ather, the budget pass ed by the Gener alA sse m bl y l acke d th e nec ess ar y a pp ro pri ati ons f orthe pay i n c re ase s. A m em or andu m fro m th e S tat e’ s Depart m ent o fCentra l M anage m ent S er vi ces Dir ect o r Mal c o l m W e e ms tha twa s i s s ue d o n J ul y 1 , 2 011, the day afterth e b u d getbec am e l aw , em phasi zed that the fund i ng sho rt f all w as caused by the l egi sl atur e, not th e Gov erno r : “ [ T] he budg ettha t was pa ss ed bythe Ge n e r a l A s s e mb l y a n d s e n tt o th e G o v e r n o r D O E S NOT conta i n app ropri ati on a uthor i ty to i m ple m ent c osto f l i vi ng adj ustm ents, l onge vi ty enhancem ents orst ep increas es f o r em p loyees covered by a coll ective ba rga in in g a gr ee m en t in th e [1 4 a ffec te d ag en c ies ].” I n th e s a me J u l y 1 me mo r a n d u m, D i r e c t o r We e ms re l aye d the ba d new s that the S tat e was in st i tuti ng a payfr ee ze o n the e m p loyees ofthe 1 4 ag en ci es : “ [ D] ue to the abs en ce o fs uffi ci en t appr o pr i at i o ns b y the GeneralA sse m bl y, the abov e l i ste d agenci es cannot i m ple m ent the FY12 i ncre ase s. ” This dir ecti ve w as subsequentl y e nacted in a seto fEm er gencyRule s that am ended the S ta te’s pay pla n. 35 I l l

. Reg. 11 , 657 ( J uly15 , 2011 ). T hos e E m ergen cy R ules w ere later m ad e p erm anent and too k e ff ect on Decem ber6, 20 11. 35 I l l

. Reg. 20, 144 ( Dec. 23 , 20 11) . (B ecause ther e i s no subst anti ve di ff er en ce betwee n the Em er g en cya nd Pe r m an en t Rules , we w i l l si m plyr eferto them as the “Rule s. ”) The pa y fr ee ze a ff ec te d a ppr o xi m at el y 3 0, 00 0 Cou nci l 31

- re prese nted em plo yee s a cro ss the 1 4 a genci es6 N o. 11

- 3111 and save d the S tat e about $75 m i l l ion . C ounci l 31 ar gued that ther e w er e s eve ra l vi abl e a l ter nati ves that the S tat e coul d have pursued t o m ake up the l ack ofappropr i ati ons f orthe 14 age nci es. Those alt ernati ves i ncl ud ed al l oca ti ng so m e o fthe “hund re ds ofm i l l i ons of dol l ar s” i n unex p en ded appropr i ati ons f ro m fi scalye ar20 11, sl o wi ngthe r at e atwhi chthe S ta te fi l l s po si ti o ns th atb ec o m e v ac an t dur i ngfi sc aly ea r 2 01 2 o r e ve n i nst i tu tinga hi r i ngfr ee ze o n s uchpo si ti o ns , t r ansferr i ng fun ds fr o m o the r a pp r o pr i a t i o ns i t e ms f o r the a ff e c ted age nci es, se eki ng legisl ati ve author i ty to use s om e o f th e sa vi ng s fr o m the g o ve r no r ’ s l i ne - i te m v et o es , a nd see ki ng sup ple m entalappropr i ati ons f ro m the General A sse m bl y. Bu t the S tat e d id n ot pursue any o ftho se al ter nati ves. S o , on Ju ly8 , 2 01 1, Co unc i l 3 1, o n b eh al fo fi ts el fa nd i ts aff ecte d m em ber s, fi l ed thi s s uitag ai nst the S tat e, Go v e r n o r Q u i n n, a n d D i r ec to r We e ms . L e s s th a n t wo w eeks l at er, Co unc i l 3 1 fi l ed ana m en ded co m pl aint th at li ste d fi ve cl ai m s. Counts Iand I I, br ought und er 42 U. S

. C. § 1 98 3, all eged tha t Gov erno r Qui nn an d Di r ec to r W ee m s vi ola te d the Co nt r ac ts Cl au se a nd Equa l Pr o te ct i o n Cl au se o fthe U. S

. Co ns ti tu ti o n, a nd Cou nt s I I I, I V , a nd V al l eg ed st at e st atut o r y a nd c o ns ti tu
ti onalcl ai m s. On A u gust 9, 20 11, the defe nd ants m ove d to dism i ss th i s su i t f o r f ai l ur e to s ta te a c l ai m a s w ell a s unde r the Ele venth Am endm ent’ s s ove re i gn i m m unity pr ote ction. On Augus t 19 , 20 11 , Cou nc i l 31 fi l ed a m o ti on for a prel i m i naryi nj uncti on t o enf or c e i ts Contrac ts- ClauseN o. 11

- 3111 7 cl ai m by enj oi ni ng the Rule s a nd thus r equirin g th e S tat e t o pa y o ut wa g e i nc r e a s e s a s the y c a me du e . Aft er su ppl ement alb r i efi nga nd a n e vi den ti ar y h ea r i ng, the dist ri ct c ourtgr anted the defen d an ts’ m oti on t o dism i ss al l cl ai m s a nd deni ed Council31 ’s re quest f orpre li m inary inj un ctive reli ef. Spec ificall y, th e d istri ct cou rt n o t ed th at th e E lev en th A m en d m en t b ar re d C ou n c il 31’ s s tat e- l aw cl ai m s a gai nst a l l defendants, and that Counc il 3 1 co ul d no t br i ngi ts § 1 98 3 cl ai m s ag ains t th e St ate ; r at h er, such cl ai m s co uld be as ser ted o nl y a gai nst Gover norQuinn and Dir ecto r W eem s i n their offi ci al ca pac i ti es . The di st r i ctc o ur t fur th er h el d tha t th e Ele venth Am endm en t barr ed Council31 ’ s Contr acts
Clause cl ai m aga i nst Gover nor Qu i nn and D ire cto r W ee m s an d, a ddi ti o na l l y, tha t th e amende d c o m pl aint f ai l ed to adequatel y sta te ei thera Contrac ts- Clause c l a i m o r a n E q u a l P r o t e c t i o n c l a i m. At the s ame t i m e th atthi s su i t was unfo l di ng, the par ti es e ng ag ed i n a rbi tr at i o n. On J ul y 1 9, 2 01 1, the a rb i t r a t o r f o u n d th a tth e p a y fr e e z e v i o l a t e d th e t e r ms o fthe c o l l ec ti ve bargai ni nga g r ee m en ts a nd o r der ed th e St ate i m m edi ate l y t o pay the 2% wage i ncre ase thatwas due o n J u l y 1 , 2 0 1 1 ( r e c a l l, th e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i ni ng ag r ee m en t o r i g i na l l y pr ovide d f o r a 4 % i nc r ea se , b ut the par ti es had negot i ate d a defer ra l o fh alf of that am ou n t to a l ate r date)

. The arbi tr ato r furthero rder ed th e S ta te t o c o nt i nue t o pa y the i nc reas ed wag es , a nd to m ake w hol e thos e em plo yee s w ho did not recei ve the incre ase d w age s due o n J uly1. The S tat e then fi l ed sui t i n the C ircuitCourto fCookCounty t o vacat e the a rbi tr ato r’ s a w ar d; Council31 co unterc l ai m ed f or8 N o. 11

- 3111

T he re are tw o m or e actio ns also p en d ing in Ill in o i s state 3 c our t
. Thos e ac t i ons

— on e b ro u g ht by the State, on e b y C ou nc il 31

— inv olv e the State’s plan ne d lay offs a nd f acility closu res. B u t on this ap p eal Co u nc il 31 ’ s fed era l ch allen g es ex t e n d o n ly to the pay - f reeze is sue, and thus neither of the se state- court act ions has any b eari ng on ou r c ase . en for c em en t o f th e a w ar d

. Sta te v . A m . Fed’n of St a te & M un. Em ps . , Counc i l 31 , N o. 20 11- CH

- 2535 2 ( Cook Cn ty. C i r . C t
. , C h a n c e r y D i v . Ma r . 1 5 , 20 12 ) ( h t t p : //www . coo kco untycl er kof cour t. or g)

. Thi s s tat e- cour t ca se re 3 m ai ns p en ding du ri ng Counci l 31 ’ s pre sent appeal ta ken f ro m the dist ri ct c ourt
.
II. T he tw o clai m s a t i s su e on ap p eal are Cou nc il31’s C o n t r a c t s - C l a u s e c l a i m a n d i t s E q u a l P r o t e c t i o n c l a i m; both ar e a sse rt ed aga i nst Gove rno r Q u in n and Dir ecto r W eem s i n thei r offi c ial c apaci ti es. Counci l 31 chal l enges the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s h o l di ngthatthe El e v e nth Am e nd

m ent b ar re d C ounci l 31 ’ s Contr acts
- Clause cl ai m ag ai nst G overn o r Qui nn an d Di r ec to r W ee m s an d tha t th e am ended com pla i nt f ai l ed to st ate ei thera Co n tr acts
Cl au se cl ai m o r a n Equ alPr o te ct i o n c l ai m . I n mak i ng these ar gum ents, Counci l 31 m ain ta ins that i t i s no t se e k i n g m on et ar y d am ag es in t h is c as e; ra th er , i t is se ek in g inj u n c tiv e relief on its C on tr ac ts -C lau se c l a im an d d ec lar at o r y ju d gm en t o n bo th of its cla im s. W e w ill add re ss the El eve nth A m endm ent i ssue fi rs t a nd then m ove to wh etherthe dist ri ct c ourtpro perl y di sm isse dN o. 11

- 3111 9 Council31 ’ s cl ai m s f orf ai l ure to sta te a c laim o n w hi ch r e l i e fma y b e g r a nt e d.

A . Eleven th A m en d m en t S overeign I m m u n ity The di st r i ctc o ur t he l d tha t the El ev en thAm en dm en t bar re d Counci l 31 f ro m obt ai ni ng re l i ef und eri ts C on tr ac ts -C lau se c laim an d ac c or d in gly d en ied C o u n c il 3 1 ’ s mo t i o n f o r a p r e l i mi n a r y i nj u n c t i o n . We r e v i e w de n ov o a d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ism iss al of a p l a i n t iff’s c laim o n E lev en th A m en d m en t g ro u n d s. Nan d a v . Bd

. of Trustees , 303 F.3d 817, 821 ( 7th Cir. 2002) (ci tation om itted ). The Ele venth Am endm ent pr ovi des, “The J ud i ci al pow erof t h e U ni ted S tat es shal l notbe const rued to extend to any s uiti n l aw o r equi ty, co m m enced orpro secuted ag ai nst o ne of t he U ni ted S tat es by Citi zens of anothe r St ate , o r by Citi zens orS ubj ects o fan y F or ei gn St at e.” U .S. C O NST . am en d X I. C ou rt s h av e c on st ru ed th is provi si on br oadl y, hol ding that i t co nfe rs “ ‘th e s ove re i gn i m m uni tytha t t he S ta te s po ss es se d b efo r e en te r i ngthe Uni o n. ’ ” B d. of Regents v. Ph oenix Int’l Software, Inc. , 65 3 F. 3d 448, 45 7 ( 7th Cir. 2 011) ( quoti ng Coll egeSa v. Bank v

. Fl

. Pr epai d Po s t s e co ndary Educ

. Expe ns eBd. , 52 7 U.S

. 66 6, 66 9 ( 1999 ) )

. Thi s m eans that, al though no t e xpli citly pr o vi ded f o r i n the t ex t, “the El ev en thAm en dm en t g ua r an te es tha t an‘ unc o ns en tingS ta te i s i m m une f r o m s u i t s b r o u g h ti n fe d e r a l c o u r t s b y h e r o wnc i t i z en s as w el l as by ci tiz ens o fano therS tat e. ’ ” Id. ( quo ting Edel m an v. Jor dan , 4 1 5 U
. S

. 6 5 1 , 6 6 3 ( 1 9 74 ) )

. A s we ha v e n o t e d e l s e whe r e , “ [ i ] fp r o pe r l y r a i s e d, the a men dm ent b ar s a cti ons i n federa l co urt aga i nst a st ate , st ate10 N o. 11

- 3111 age nci es, o r sta te offi ci al s a cti ng i n thei r offi ci alcapaci ti es. ” Ind . P rot. & A dv o ca cy Servs. v. Ind

. Fa m ily & So c. Servs. Adm i n. , 60 3 F
. 3d 365, 37 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( ci ti ng Edel m an , 415 U
. S. at66 3)

. H er e, ther e i s no di spute thatthe defen d an ts , su ed a s s t a t e o f f i c i a l s a c tin g in th eir o ffi c i a l c a pa c i t i e s , t i mel y ra i s e d the El e v e nth Am e nd

m ent defense. But, ev en wh en pro perl y r ai sed, so ver ei gn i m m unity i s no t abso l ute im m u ni ty. There ar e three exce pti ons to th is d efe n se th at m a y su b j ec t a st at e t o a n ac tio n in f ede r alc o ur t: ( 1) wher e Con g r es s, a ct i ngunde r i ts c o nsti tuti onalautho rity c onvey ed by am endm ents passed afterthe Ele vent h A m endm ent ( the m ostco m m on being th e Fourte en th A m en d m en t), abrog ates a sta te’s i mm un i t y fr o m s ui t ; ( 2 ) wh e r e the s t a t e i t s e l fc o ns e nt s to be i ngs ue d i n fede r alc o ur t; a nd ( 3) un derthe do ct r i ne ar ti cu lated b y the S upr eme Co ur t i n Ex par t eYoung, 20 9 U
. S. 12 3 ( 1908 ). Id. a t 37 1. Her e, the fi r stt wo e xc ept i o ns are not ap p lic a b le so w e nee d ad d ress on ly th e third excepti on

— the Ex par t eYoungdoctr i ne. The Ex p a r t eYo u ng doctr i ne “a l l ows pri vate part i es to su e indivi du alst ate o ffi ci al s f orpro specti ve re l i efto enj oi n ongo i ng vi ol ati ons offedera l l aw . ” M C I Teleco m m s. Corp
. v. Il l

. Be l l Te l

. Co. , 22 2 F.3d 3 23 , 337 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) (c ita tio n s o m itt ed ). Th er e is a lon gs ta n d in g ra tio n ale th atunde r l i es th is do ct r i ne : “ [ B] ec au se a n un co ns ti tu
ti o na l l egi sl at i ve e na ct m en t i s ‘ vo i d, ’ a s ta te o ffi ci alwho enf or ces that l aw ‘ com es i nto confl i ct with the su peri or author i ty of the Consti tuti on, ’ and ther ef or e i s ‘ str i pp ed ofhi s o ffi ci alo r re prese ntati ve ch aracte r and i s s ub-N o. 11

- 3111 11 j ec te d in h is p er so n to t h e c on se q u en c es of h is in d ivi du alco nd uct. ’ ” V

a . O ffice fo r P rot. & A dv o ca cy v. Stew a rt, 131 S. Ct. 16 32, 16 38 (2 011) ( quoti ng Ex par t eYoung, 20 9 U. S

. a t 15 9- 60 )

. To de te r m i ne whethe r Go ve r no r Qui nn and D i re cto r W ee m s m ay be s o str i pp ed ofthe offi ci al chara ctero fthei r posi ti ons, we “ ‘ need onl y c onduct a st r ai g ht f o r war d i nqui r y i nt o whethe r the c o m pl aint al l ege s a n ongo i ng vi ol ati on o ffedera l l aw and see ks re l i efp ro perl y c hara cter i zed as pro specti ve. ’ ” Ind . P rot. & A dv o ca cy Servs. , 60 3 F
. 3d at 371 ( quoti ng Verizon M d., Inc. v. Pub

. Se r v. Com m ’ n o f M d. , 535 U
. S. 635, 645 (2002 ))

. T he first part of that inq uiry

— whethe r the c o m p lai nt al l ege s a n ong oing vi ol ati on o ffedera l l aw

— is re ad ily sat i sfi ed her e: Counci l 31 al l ege s that the Rul es p ut i nto pl ac e byGo ve r no r Qui nn an d Di r ec to r W ee m s vi o l at e th e Contrac ts Clause o fthe U
. S. Consti tuti on bec ause thos e Rules deny the aff ecte d e m plo yee s thei r w age increas es d u e u n d er th e c olle c tiv e b ar ga in in g ag re em en ts (as m od ifi ed bys ubs eque ntc o st
- sa vi ng s ag r ee m en ts )

. Butthe secon d pa rt of th e inqu iry

— whethe r the r el i efs o ug ht i s proper l y chara cter i zed as p ro specti ve

— is p ro b lem at ic f o r C o u n c i l 3 1
. T o b e c l e a r, C o u n c i l 3 1 s e e k s t wo f o r ms ofr el i efunder i ts Contrac ts- Clause cl ai m : i nj uncti ve re l i effro m the Rules and a de c lar ato ryj ud gm ent that t h e S t a t e ’ s a c t i o n s v i o l a t e d th e C o n t r a c t s C l a u s e . We addr es s bo thf o r m s o fr el i efi n tur n. The Suprem e Court has hel d that “ Ex par t eYoungcannot be use d to obt ai n an i nj uncti on r equi ri ng the p aym ent o f fu n d s fro m th e St at e’s tre as u ry . . . or a n ord er fo r sp ec ific perf or m ance o fa St ate ’ s co ntra ct. ” V a . O ffice fo r P rot. &12 N o. 11

- 3111 A dvo cacy, 13 1 S

. Ct. at16 39. True, pro spective re liefo f a n o ng o i ng f e de r a l v i o l a t i o n wi l l o ft e n r e qu i r e st ate o ffi ci al s to di p i nt o a s ta te ’ s tr ea su r y t o c o m pl y wi tha c ou rt ’s o rd er . Edel m an , 415 U
. S. at 668. “Su c h an an cil lary eff e c t o n the s t a t e t r e a s ur y i s a pe r mi s s ib l e a nd of ten a n i ne vi tabl e co ns eque nc e o fthe pr i nc i pl e an no unc ed i n Ex par t eYoung
. ” Id. N eve rt hel ess , wh er e a pl ai nti ff’ s r equest for reli ef “w ou ld h ave an effect u p on th e state tr easu ry th ati s no t m er el y a nc i l l ar y b uti s th e e ssence o fthe re l i ef sought, ” i t i s bar re d b y the Ele venth A m endm ent. M SA R ealty C orp. v. State, 9 90 F.2d 288, 29 3 (7th C ir. 1993). Theref or e, i t i s ne c es sar y t o l oo k no t a t the ty pe of r el i efs o ug ht, b utthe e ff ec t th e r el i efwoul d ha ve o n the St ate i fi t were aff or ded to the plain tiff. I n doi ng so , w e recou nt the ca se of M SA Realty, w h i c hb e a r s a r e s e mbl ance t o our own . In that case , the pla i nti ffco rpor ati on pu rchas ed al l o fthe tax i ncre m en t r eve nue bonds that w er e i ssued by the Vil l age o fBuff al o Grove , I l lin ois
. Id. at 289. By l aw , the Vil l age co uld o nl y m ake the i nter est and pri nci pal paym ents du e o n the bonds ou t ofr eal proper ty and stat e a nd lo c al s al es tax i ncre m ents

— am ounts that w er e ul ti m ate l y c ontr ol l ed b y th e S tat e. Id. There f or e, wh en the S tat e Gener alA sse m bl y s ubsequentl y r educed the am ount o fta x i ncre m ent r eve nues that w ou ld be re turned t o m unici pal i ti es, the Vil l age necess ar i l y had t o re du ce th e am ou nt o fpaym ents that the pla i nti ff cor pora ti on w as owed on i ts b on d s. Se ei d. at 289- 90 . The pl ai nti ffsued, se eki ng a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent that the St ate ’ s re du cti on i n tax i ncre m en t rev
en u es co nsti tuted a vi ol ati on o fthe Contrac ts Clause , and al so an i nj uncti on that would r equi re the St ate toN o. 11

- 3111 13

r etur n the ful l a m o unto ft ax i nc r ementr ev en ue s to the Vi l l a g e o f Bu ff a l o Gr o v e , whi c h wo ul d i n t ur n b e a b l e t o p ay th e d eb t s e r v i c e on its bo n d s. Id. at29 0. The S tat e assert ed an E levent h A m en d m en t d efense to the p lai nt iff’ s c laim s. Id. W e a dd re sse d the pl ai nti ff’ s r equest f ori nj uncti ve r el i efb y no tingtha t “m erely l ab el i ngthe r el i efs o ug ht as i nj unc ti ve do es no t defea t th e el ev en tham en d m en t barto sui ts that see k r el i effro m the sta te tr eas ury. ” Id. a t2 9 5
. R a th e r, th e i nqui r y mus tg o d e e p e r, a n d s o we concl ud ed as f ol l ows: [ T]he el eve nth am endm ent b ar s a cl ai m f or i nj uncti ve reli ef such a s [th e plaintiff’s] th at w ou ld req uire di r ec t pay m en ts b y the s ta te fr o m i ts t r ea su r y f o r the i nd i re ct b enefi t o f a s p ec i fi c ent i ty, o r that see ks to re q u ir e s t a te offic ials to ca rry ou t a ta sk th at on ly the s tat e ca n perf or m i n i ts p oliti calcapaci ty, such as fulfi l l i ng prom i ses m ade al l ege dly to [ tax increm en t fu n d ] d ist ric ts s u c h as th e V illag e o f B u ffalo Grove , o r that see ks re l i efthatcannotbe con sid er ed m er el y a nc i l l ar y t o a ch i ev i ngc o m pl i an ce w ith a deter m i nati on o fa substa nti ve f edera l co nsti tuti onal w ro n g. Id. I n additi on, we rej ec te d t he pl ai nti ff’ s r equest f or d ec l ar ato ryj ud gm ent b ecause such “ re l i efsho uld not be a w ar d ed wh er e the el eve nth am endm ent b ar s a n awar d o fmone ta r y o r i nj unc ti ve r el i ef; othe r wi se the [ dec l ar at o r y ] r el i efwoul d o per at e as a mean s o fa vo i di ng the a m endm ent’ s ba r. ” Id. T h e ra tio n ale for t h is hol ding i s s ound : “ Forthe f edera l co urt to decl ar e that def e nd a nt s h a v e v i o l a t e d the i mpa i r men to fc o nt r acts14 N o. 11

- 3111 cl au se i n the pa stwoul d g ive [ a pl aint i ff ] a j udg m en t that w oul d have r es j ud i cata eff ect i n sta te cour t o n the i ssue ofl i abi l i ty. ” Id. I n th i s ca se , l i k e th e pl aint if f in M SA Realty, Counci l 31 se ek s an i nj unc ti o n th at woul d r es ul t i n pay m en ts bei ng m ade ou t ofthe St ate ’ s t re asur y. Counci l 31 at tem pts to dist i ngui sh i ts re quested i nj uncti ve re l i effro m that so ug htb y the pl aint i ffi n M SA Realtyb y poi nt i ngt o the f act t h at C ounci l 31 se eks o nl y t o enj oi n the Rules that im p lem en te d th e p ay f r e e ze ; con ve rs ely , th e p lain tiff in M SA Realtys o ug htr el i ef“ th r o ug h a n o r derdi r ec ting the pay m ent o fcer tai n fund s o ut o fthe s ta te trea suryto th e Buff al o Gr o ve [ ta x i nc r ementfund] distri ctf o r the ult i m ate bene fi t o f[ the pl ai nti ff ]
. ” Id. at 292. In other w or ds , C ou n ci l 31 ’ s r equest f ori nj uncti ve re l i efdoes not s pe c i fi c a l l y r e qu i r e the c o ur tt o di r e c tp aym en to ffun ds o uto fthe St at e’ s tr ea su r y, whi l e th e pl aint i ffi n M SA R ealtyd i d s e e kd i r e c tp a y me n t
. Thi s d i s t i n c t i o n i s i mm at er i al

. Co unci l 3 1’ s ar g um en t i g no r es o ur ho l di ng that “the el eve nth am endm ent b ar s a cl ai m f ori nj uncti ve re l i ef

. . . thatwould r equi re di re ct pay m ents by the s tat e fro m its t r e a s u ry for t h e in d ire c t b en efit of a s p ec ific enti ty. ” Id. at29 5. I t doe s no t m att erthatthe i nj uncti on i n thi s ca se w ou ld pr ec l ude S ta te o ffi ci al s f r o m e nf o r ci ng th e R ul es wi th o ute xpl i ci tl y di r ec tingpa y m en t f r o m the St ate ’ s t re asur y; the eff ect ofi ssui ng the i nj uncti ve r el i efCo unc i l 3 1 se ek s i n thi s ca se i s t he sam e as the eff ec t o fthe r el ie fs o ug htb y the pl aint i ffi n M SA Realty

— th e inj u n c t ion w ou ld forc e t h e d efe n d an ts , ac tin g in th eir offici al cap acities, to ex tract fun d s from th e State’s treasu ry f or the u lti m ate ben efi t of th e plaint if fs. Th ereN o. 11

- 3111 15 i s thu s no questi on that the “e sse nce o fthe re l i efso ught” i s th e p a y me n t o f fu n d s o u t o f th e t r e a s u r y t o t he e mplo yee s a t th e 14 sta te age nci es w hose budgets di d not conta i n suffi ci ent a pp ro pri ation s t o pay wage i ncre ase s. Id. at29 3; se e also Va
. O ff ice fo r P ro t. & Adv ocacy, 13 1 S

. Ct. at 1639 ( “ Ex par t eYoungcannotbe used to o btai n an i nj unc tion re qui r i ngthe pa y m en t o ffunds fr o m the St ate ’ s t re asur y . . . . ”)

. A c c or d i ngl y, the i nj uncti ve re l i ef soughti n thi s ca se does not have a “m er el y a nci l l ar y” eff ect on the S tat e’ s t re asur y, the Ex par t eYoungdoc tri ne d oes not ap p ly, and the E levent h A m en d m en t bars Council31 ’ s r equest f oran inj uncti on under i ts Contrac tsC lau se cla im
. M SA Re al ty Corp. , 99 0 F
. 2d at 293. W e al so o bs er ve tha t th e defen dan ts r ai se d the Ele venth Am endm ent defense aga i nst the ent i re ty of Council31 ’ s Contr act s-C l ause cl ai m . Thi s i ncl ud es not onl y Council 31’ s re quest f or a prel i m i na ry inj uncti on buta l so i ts r eque stf o r de cl arat o r y j udg m en t. But ne i th erthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s o r derno r the pa r ti es ’ b r ief s on a pp ealaddress the Ele venth Am en d m en t’ s a pp l i cati on t o Council31 ’ s r equest f ordecl ar ato ryj ud gm ent. N everth eless, th e reason ing of M S A Re al ty appli es w i th equal fo rc e her e: “[ D]ecl ar ato ryr el i efsho uld notbe aw ard e d w he re the eleven th am en d m en t bars an aw ard ofm onet ar y o r i nj uncti ve re l i ef; o ther w i se the [ decl ar ato r y ] r el i efwoul d o perate as a m ea ns o fa vo i di ngthe am endm ent’ s ba r. ” Id. at29 5. There f or e, the Eleventh A m endm ent b ar s a l l r el i efthatCounci l 31 se eks under i t s C o n t r a c t s - C l a u s e c l a i m.16 N o. 11

- 3111 B. F ailure to S tate a C laim Cou nc i l 3 1 al so c ha l l en g es the di st r i ctc ou rt’s r ul i ng that i t fai l ed to adequatel y s tat e e i thera Contrac tsClause or an Eq ual Pro tect i on cl ai m . W e w i l l ad d re ss ea chc l ai m i n tur n. W e rev ie w de novo a d istri ct cou rt’s dism issal of a pla i nti ff’ s cl ai m s f orf ai l ure to sta te a cl ai m o n w hi ch re lief m ay be gra n te d

. Graczyk v. W
. Pub l ’g Co. , 66 0 F
. 3d 2 7 5 , 2 7 8 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 1 ) ( c i ti ng G re e nb e rge rv. GEICO Ge n. Ins . Co. , 63 1 F
. 3d 392, 39 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ). O u r f ocus at th i s s tag e i s o n the com pla i nt; we w i l l co nstr ue al l wellple aded al l ege d fa cts, and draw al l reas onabl e i nfe re nces, in a ligh t m o s t f a v or ab le t o t h e p lain tiff. Id. at27 9. A lthough “ [ t] he pl ai nti ffneed n ot
. . . pl ead ‘ detai l ed f actualal l ega ti ons, ’ ” R eynolds v. C B Sports Ba r, Inc. , 62 3 F. 3d 1143 , 11 46 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( quoti ng Ash cro ft v . Iq b al , 556 U
. S. 66 2, 12 9 S

. Ct. 1 94 7, 1949 ( 2009 ) ) , “[ t] o survi ve a m o ti o n to di smi ss , a co m pl aint m us t co nt ai n suffi ci en t f actualm att er, acc epted as tr u e, to ‘ sta te a cl ai m to r e l i e ftha ti s p l a us ib l e o n i t s f a c e . ’ ” Iq b al , 12 9 S

. Ct. at 1949 ( quoti ng B el l A tl

. C orp. v . Tw om bly, 55 0 U.S

. 54 4, 570 (2007 ))

.
1. Con tr acts-C lau se C laim E ve n if th e E lev en th A m en d m en t d id n ot b a r C o u n c il 31 ’ s Contr acts
- Clause cl ai m , thatcl ai m would st i l l f ail be ca us e Cou nc i l 3 1 ha s no t st at ed a co g ni zabl e cl ai m . The Contrac ts Clause o fthe U
. S. Consti tutio n p ro vi des that “No st at e sh al l en ter int o a ny . . . La w i m pai r i ngtheN o. 11

- 3111 17

W e r e c ognize t ha t, e ve n i fthe Rul e s c on s t i t ut e d a s ub

4 stan tial im p airm en t of the co l l e c t iv e b arg ain ing ag reem en ts, the d efend an ts m ay s t ill be ju stified in actin g as they d id if the y can sho w tha t th e R u les w ere “ rea son ab le an d nec essary to m eetan i m p o rt ant s ocial prob le m . ” E & E Hau l i n g, In c. v. Forest P rese rv e D ist. , 61 3 F .2d 67 5 , 68 1 ( 7 t h C ir . 19 8 0 ) (cit in g , in te r a lia , A l l i ed Str uct uralSt ee l C o. , 438 U.S

. at 242- 44 ). H ere, the i m port ants oc i al pr obl em thatthe St at e s oughtt o fi x by d ecreas i ng a p p r o p r i a t i o n s t o th e 1 4 a ffe c t e d a g e n c i e s w a s I l l i n o i s’s (co n tin u ed ...) O b liga tio n of C on tr ac ts
. . . .” U .S. C O NST . a r t. I, § 1 0. To succee d on a Contrac ts- Clause cl ai m , a pla i ntiffm ust dem onst ra te th at a “ change i n sta te l aw has ‘ oper ate d as a s u b st an tia l im p air m en t o f a c on t r a c tu al re lat ion sh ip .’ ” G en. M otors C o rp. v. Ro m ei n , 50 3 U.S

. 18 3, 18 6 ( 1992 ) ( quoti ng Ene rgy Res e r ve s Grp. , Inc . v. Kan. Power& Light Co. , 459 U .S. 20 0, 41 1 (19 83 ); All i e d S t r uc t ural St e e l Co. v. Span nau s , 4 38 U. S

. 2 34 , 2 44 ( 19 78 ) )

. Thi s i nqui ry r equi r es the pl aint i ffto sh o w ( 1) tha t th er e i s a co ntr actualr el ati onshi p, ( 2) thata change i n l aw has i m pai r ed tha t r el at i o ns hi p, a nd ( 3) tha t th e i m pai r m en t is s u b st an tia l. Id. ; see also Khan v

. Gal l i t ano , 18 0 F.3d 82 9, 832 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99)

. The p ar ti es dispute both aspect s o f th e s ec on d ele m en t (w h et h er th er e h as be en a c h an ge in l aw , and, i fso , wh et h er a ny change i n l aw cause d an i m pai rm ent o fthe contr actu al r el ati onshi p) as w el l as th e th i r d e l ement( whethe r a ny i m pai r m en t i s su bs ta nti al )

. W e nee d not wad e i nto al l o fthes e di sputes, how ever, becau se w e beli eve th at th e issue of i m p airm en t s et tle s t h e m at te r. A n d so w e w ill ad d re ss on ly 418 N o. 11

- 3111

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 fis cal d eficit. C ou nc il 31 co nte nd s that t h e R u l es are n ot a re as ona bl e and n ecessa ry m ea ns t o r em edy t hi s pr obl em an d t he n o f f er s a num ber ofal t er nat i ve c our s es ofac t i on. But because “[ a] s tat e . . . res erve[ s] broad pow er t o a d o pt regulation s to p ro tect t h e p u b lic w itho u t be ing con cern ed w ith up se tt ing contractual obli gati ons, ” i d. , Counc i l 31 m us tdem onstrate (or, at this stag e of the ca se, p lau sibly alleg e) that at lea st one ofthos e al t er nat i ves i s a m or e m oder at e c ourse o fac t i on t hanthe Rul es , an d t hatthe al t er nat i ve w ould s er ve t he p u rp o se o f m ee tin g th e S ta te ’s fisca l n ee d s eq u a lly w el l. S ee U .S. Trust C o. of

N .Y
. v. New Jers ey, 431 U.S

. 1 , 3 0 -3 1 (1 977)

. It is do ub tful that Co uncil 31 has m et thatburd en here ; the ref ore, w e are i ncli ned to defe r t o the Stat e’ s broad p o w er t o protect its citi zen s. whethe r the r e ha s be ena n i m pai r m en t o fthe c o ntr actualr el ati onshi p i n thi s ca se. Cou nc i l 3 1 ar g ue s th at“ [ c] o ur ts fi nd i m pai r m en t wher e, a s he r e, the e xpress terms o fthe l ab o r a g r ee m en t cre ate the ri ght or benefi t i n questi on becaus e o n e can p re su m e t h at th e p ar tie s t o a co n tr ac t h av e re lied h ea vily on th e e x p l i c i t b en efit s s et fort hin t h at co n tr ac t.” T h is ar g um en t des cr ibe s a cl as si c br ea cho fc o nt r ac t ac ti o n. Bu t we have rej ecte d the not i on that a br each o fco ntra ct alone is enou gh to const itute a con stitut ional im p airm en t o f a c on tr ac tu al ob liga tio n . H orwitz-M at t he ws, Inc
. v. City of Chi cago , 78 F. 3d 1248, 1250 (7th C ir. 1996). And f orgo od r eas on: “The es sence . . . o fa bre ach o fco ntra ct i s tha t i t tr i g g er s a dut y t o pa y da m ag es f o r the re as on ab ly for es ee ab le c on se q u en c es of th e b re ac h . I fN o. 11

- 3111 19 the duty [ to pay dam age s] i s un i m pai re d, the obl i gat i on of t h e c on tr ac t c an n ot be sa id to h av e b ee n im p a i r e d .” Id. at12 51. S o ou r i nquir y doe s no t f ocus on wh ether Council31 has adequatel y pl eaded a b re ach o fco ntra ct cl ai m ( i t m ostcer tai nl y has ) , but ra thero n “wh ether [ the S tat e]
. . . se t up a defe nse that pr eve nted [ Council31 ] f ro m o btai ni ng dam age s, o r som e e quiva l ent r em edy, f orthe bre ach. ” Id. H er e, Counci l 31 ar gues onl y th at t h e Ru l es const i tute an un con stitut ional im p airm en t of th e coll ective ba rga in in g a gr ee m en ts . Th is a rg u m en t c an p re v a il on ly if the Rul es ar e a defense that the S tat e ha s se t u p to preve nt Counc il 3 1 fr om o btai ni ng dam age s f orbr each of contrac t. A nd so w e w il l briefl y exa m ine th e State’s defe nse in the af or em enti oned s tate co urt proce edi ngs t o de t e r mi ne whe the r the R ul e s f o r e c l o s e a r e med y f orbr each ofco ntra ct. I t i s cl earthattheydo not

. I n d ee d , C ounci l 31 has al re ady pre vai l ed at arbi tr ati on o n i ts breac h ofco ntra ct c laim , and i n the subsequent sui t fi l ed by the S tat e in state cou rt to vacat e the arbitrat ion aw ard , the Stat e’s defen se i s no t pr edi ca te d o n the R ules

. Ra th er, the St ate ’ s defe nse i s base d o n the appli cati on o fS ecti on 2 1 o f the I l l i n oi s Publ i c S ecto r Rel ati ons A ct, wh i ch st ate s that th e n eg ot iat ion of co llec tiv e b ar ga in in g ag re em en ts is “[ s] ubj ect to th e a pp ro pri ati on power o fthe em plo yer [ w hi ch i s the S tat e]
. ” 5 I l l

. Com p. S tat
. 31 5/21. A ccor dingl y, the S tat e has ar gued that appropri ati on s ar e a co nd i ti on prece dent to the w ag e i ncre ase s be i ng pai d. Because ple naryappropr i ati on a uthor i ty l i es w i th the l egi sl ati ve20 N o. 11

- 3111 bran ch , the Stat e asser t s tha t the exec ut ive branc h’s h a n d s a r e t i e d b y th e a p p r o p r i a t i o n s d o l e d o u t by t he G en er al A ss e m b ly a n d so th e St at e c an n ot be h eld liab le f o r a b r e a c h o fc o nt r a c twh e n, because o fa l a c ko fa ppr o pr i at i o ns , i ns uffi ci en t funds e xi stt o ful fil l a c o ntr ac tu alo bl i g at i o n. T h is a rg u m en t is co n sis te n t w ith th e St at e’s rat ion ale f orenac ti ng the r ule s, as st ate d i n Dir ecto r W eem s’ s J uly1 memo r a nd um: “ [ D] ue t o the ab s e nc e o fs uffi c i e nta ppropri ati ons by the General A sse m bl y, the abov e li st ed age nci es cannot i m ple m ent the FY12 i ncre ase s. ” In o ther wo r ds , the R ul e s s i mpl y i mpl e men t e d a p a y men tp l an that had been di ctat ed by l egi slat i ve fi at. U l ti m ate l y, w he the r the S t a t e pr e v a i l s i n s t a t e c o ur t wi l l no tr est on the co urt’ s c onst ructi on o fthe Rules , but ra thero n th e c ou rt ’s a p p lica tio n of Se c tio n 21 of th e Il l i n o is Publi c S ecto r Rel ati ons A ct

— spe ci fi ca l l y, whethe r the cour t a ccepts the S tat e’ s a rgum ent that S ecti on 2 1 e stabl i shes the n ot i on that a pp ro pri ati ons ar e a co nd i ti on prece dent to the S tat e m eet i ng i ts contr actualo bl i gat i ons. T h us, the Rules do notf or ecl ose a re m edy f orbr each ofco ntra ct, and no i m pai rm ent o fa con tr ac tualo bl i gatio n ex ist s . C ou n c il 31 h as failed to st at e a co gn iza b le C o n t r a c t s - C l a u s e c l a i m.

2. Eq u al Protection C laim Fi nal l y, Counci l 31 ar gues that the di str i ct c ourter re d i n hol ding that i t f ai l ed to adequatelyst ate an Equal Pro tect i on cl ai m . The Fo urte enth Am endm en t’s Eq ual P r o te c tio n C lau se req u ire s t h at “ ‘all p er so n s s im ilar ly si tuate d .

. . be tr eat ed al i ke. ’ ” U nited S ta tes v. B ruck er, 64 6N o. 11

- 3111 21 F. 3d 1012 , 10 17 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( quoti ng U ni ted St at e s v. N agel , 559 F. 3d 756, 76 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) )

. But Equ alPro tecti o n c l ai m s ar e su bj ectt o di ff er en t deg r ee s o fs cr ut i ny depe ndi ngo n th e i ndi vi dual r i g ht s o r th e cl as s o fpe r so ns at i ssue. A s Counci l 31 acknow l edges , “[ t] he pro per l eve l o f s c ruti ny i n thi s ci rcum sta nce i s the r ati onalr el ati onshi p test, forour case does not i nvol ve a fund am ental ri ght, and there i s no suspe c t cl ass . ” D is covery H ouse, Inc. v. C onsol. City of Indianapo li s , 319 F.3d 277, 282 (7th Cir. 20 03 )

. Undertha t st an dar d, the a ppl i cabl e g o ve r nm en t r egul at i o n wi l l be uphe l d “ ‘ i f th er e i s a r at i o na l rela ti o ns hi p b e t we e n the di s pa r i t y o ft re a t men ta nd s o me l egi ti m ate go ver nm entalpurpose. ’ ” B ruck er, 64 6 F
. 3d at 1017( em phasi s i n or i gi nal ) ( quoti ng Sm i t h v . City of Chic ago , 457 F.3d 643 , 652 (7th C ir. 2006)). Cou n c i l 3 1 c o n t e n d s th a t, a t th i s e a r l y s t a g e o ft he pr o ce eding s, i t is i m pr o pert o de te r m i ne whethe r pa y i ng r ai se s to e m pl o y ee s i n s o m e ag en ci es b ut n ot to the 30 ,00 0 em p loy ee s in th e 1 4 a ffec te d ag en c ies is ra tio n ally re l ate d to a l egi ti m ate go ver nm en ta l purpose

. Counci l 31 sta tes thati t i s e nough thatit has ple aded an Equ alPro

te ct i o n c l ai m a t th i s st age o fthe pr o ce eding s. La te r o n, Cou nc i l 3 1 ar g ue s, its cl ai m wi l l b e te st ed ag ains t th e l e g i t i mat e g o v e r nme nt a l p ur po s e tha tthe de f e nd a nts ha ve pr o ff er ed as the i rr at i o na l e f o r i m p lement i ng the Rul es. Cou nc i l 31’s a r g um en t i gno r es the he av y b ur dena p lain tiff b ea rs w h en as se rt in g a n E q u al P ro te c tio n cla im that i s su b j ec t onl y t o ra ti onal

-basi s s crutiny. A s no ted abov e, the def endants m ust i denti fy o nl y “ som e” ( i n other22 N o. 11

- 3111

w or ds, atl eas t o ne) l eg itim ate go ver nm entalpurpose. St a t e d a no the r wa y, Co un c i l 3 1 mus tp l a us ib l y a l l ege th atno r ea sonably c o nc ei vabl e se t o ff ac ts s uppo r ts the p ay free ze as a ra tio n al in st ru m e n t o f co st sa vin gs . See D is covery H ouse, Inc. , 319 F. 3d at 282. H er e, the pa rt i es agr ee th at t h e S tat e has enco untere d a fi scalcr i si s that wi l l c au se the S ta te t o r un o uto fmoney b y t he e nd of t h e fis c al y ea r. Ins tit u tin g c os t-s av in gs m e as u re s is un qu estiona bly a l eg iti m ate gove rnm en tal i nt erest, parti cul ar l y f o r a g o ve r nm en t i n s uchdi r e fi sc als tr ait s. And by Council31 ’ s o w n adm i ssi on the S tat e would s ave approxi m ate l y $ 75 m i l l i on byi m ple m en ting the pay f re eze . I t i s th er ef or e e vi dent thatthe Rules ar e a ra ti onalm etho d ofco ntributi ng t o th e l egi ti m ate go ver nm entalai m o f c ostsa vi ngs. A ccor dingl y, the distr i ct c ourtpro perl y granted the defendants’ m oti on t o d i s mi s s C o u n c i l 3 1 ’ s E q u a l P r o t e c t i o n c l a i m.

III. The Ele venth Am endm ent b ar s C ou nci l 31 ’ s Contr acts
C lau s e c laim be c au se th e e ss en c e o f th e re lief th at it see ks i s the paym ent o ffund s o ut o fthe tr easury. C ou n c il 31 als o fa iled to st at e a C on tr ac ts -C lau se cla im be ca us e i t di d notade qua te l y a l l eg e th atthe Rul es unc o nsti tuti onal l y i m pai re d the co l l ective b ar gai ni ng ag re em e nt s . F i na l l y, Co un c i l 3 1 f a i l e d t o s t a t e a n Equa l P ro te c tio n cla im be c au se t h e r e is a ra tio n al re lat ion sh ip be t we e n the R ul e s a nd the l e g i t i mat e g o v e r nme ntal pur po se o fc o sts av i ng s. Be cau se w e ho l d tha t th e dist ri ct cou rtco rr ectl y di sm i sse d both c l ai m s a t i ssue,N o. 11

- 3111 23

w e n ec es sa rily h old th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtals o c or r ec tly den i ed Cou nc i l 3 1’ s m o ti o n f o r a pr el i m i na r y i nj unc tion. Forthes e r eas ons, the dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

5- 17- 12