Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNIONS, UNION MEMBERS—7th Cir.: LMRDA’s union officer campaign spending prohibition not subject to private enforcement, (Nov 20, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

A nonprofit corporation had sought out candidates, for a Chicago Teachers Union officer election, who would attempt to limit the power of teacher unions and their ability to bargain over certain issues.

The Seventh Circuit has held that there is no private right of action to enforce 29 U.S.C. § 481(g), which prohibits a union or employer from spending money to promote a candidate for union office. In a case involving local union election campaign spending in Chicago by a nonprofit corporation whose goal is to limit the power of teacher unions, the appeals court found that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized 29 U.S.C. § 482 as the exclusive remedy to enforce § 481 violations for 60 years, it is the Secretary of Labor who brings civil actions on behalf of aggrieved union members under § 482(b), and as the exclusive method of enforcement, § 482 permits individuals to file complaints with the Secretary post-election. Judge Maldonado concurred in the judgment (Chicago Teachers Union, Local 1 v. Educators for Excellence, Inc., No. 24-2649 (7th Cir. Nov. 19, 2025)).

CTU Local 1. Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), Local 1, according to the court, has 25,000 members. These include teachers, aides, and support staff in Chicago public schools.

May 2022 election. The union scheduled an election for late May 2022. One member ran for a position.

Enter Educators 4 Excellence... Educators 4 Excellence (E4E) is a nonprofit corporation whose goal is to limit the power of teacher unions. The nonprofit sought out candidates for the local’s election who would attempt to limit the power of teacher unions and their ability to collectively bargain over certain issues.

Union’s suit. Local 1, in turn, sued the nonprofit, arguing it contributed money to recruit and promote candidates in the May 2022 election. The union also claimed E4E would continue to contribute money to candidates and interfere in future elections. The complaint alleged causes of action under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), specifically 29 U.S.C. § 481(g), and Illinois law. E4E moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing in part that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim.

Decision below. The federal district court below agreed with E4E. After finding jurisdiction, the court considered whether the union and the member-candidate had a right of action under Section 481(g) of the LMRDA. It concluded that “nowhere in Sections 481 or 482 is there an express private cause of action for the pre-election relief that [the plaintiffs] seek.” And “there is nothing to suggest that Congress … created an implied pre-election private cause of action to enforce [§ 481(g)].”

The union and member-candidate timely appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

Implied right of action. Affirming, the federal appeals court initially observed, “[P]rivate rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress.” Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286 (2001). An express right of action is stated in a statute’s text, and by contrast, an implied right of action is judicially inferred: courts consider whether Congress intended to provide a private right of action in the statute. “The common law historically applied the equitable rule ubi jus, ibi remedium: where there is a right, there is a remedy,” and guided by this principle, courts at times have provided a remedy when a statute created a right. However, the Seventh Circuit has recognized “[a] strong presumption exists against the creation of such implied rights of action.”

No implied right of action in Section 481(g). The Seventh Circuit found that Congress did not intend 29 U.S.C. § 481(g) to allow for suits by private individuals to enforce the LMRDA’s ban on employer expenditures promoting candidates for union office. “Most revealing of Congress’s intent,” observed the appeals court, “is that § 481(g) already has a method of enforcement: § 482.” It is the Secretary of Labor who brings civil actions on behalf of aggrieved union members under 29 U.S.C. § 482(b), and for 60 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized § 482 as the exclusive remedy to enforce § 481 violations. Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134, 140 (1964).

“That exclusivity,” the Seventh Circuit continued, “strongly, if not dispositively, suggests that Congress intentionally omitted a private right of action as an alternative way to enforce § 481(g).” Indeed, “as the exclusive method of enforcement, § 482 permits individuals to file complaints with the Secretary post-election,” but the CTU here seeks to enforce § 481(g) pre-election. “Greenlighting pre-election suits disrupts Congress’s legislative choice ‘not to permit individuals to block or delay union elections by filing federal-court suits for violations of Title IV,’” and “Congress’s chosen enforcement scheme is entitled to respect.”

The district court’s judgment was accordingly affirmed.

Concurrence. Concurring in the judgment, Judge Maldonado observed that, in concluding correctly that there is no implied right of action under 29 U.S.C. § 481(g), the majority “unnecessarily dates the doctrine of implying a private right of action firmly in the past.” “While no longer en vogue,” Maldonado observed, “the doctrine of implied rights of action remains alive and has been employed by this circuit and the Supreme Court in more recent years…”

The case is No. 24-2649.

Judge: Brennan, M.

Attorneys: Thomas H. Geoghegan (Despres, Schwartz & Geoghegan) for Chicago Teachers Union. Craig C. Martin (Willkie Farr & Gallagher) for Educators for Excellence, Inc.

Companies: Chicago Teachers Union; Educators for Excellence, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Labor UnionsMembers PublicEmployees Procedure IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews GCNNews