The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear a significant climate lawsuit in which oil companies are seeking to avoid being tried in state court. 

The fate of several dozen climate lawsuits brought against oil companies by state and local governments could hinge on the decision, which could determine whether the cases should be tried in state or federal court. The suits seek to force oil companies to pay billions of dollars to help governments grapple with the costs of climate-related damages, such as natural disasters, rising sea levels and drought.

Exxon Mobil Corp. and Suncor Energy Inc., which have been sued by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, are attempting to move the suit to federal court. That would allow them to argue that they followed national regulations when extracting and selling their products. Oil companies have claimed that federal rules around greenhouse gas emissions should preempt efforts to sue them under state laws — and they think they have a better chance of winning in federal court.

But the roughly three dozen state and local governments that have sued oil companies in recent years argue that the cases belong in state court. Many of the lawsuits cite state consumer protection and fraud laws, along with evidence that the companies knew about the risks of climate change while downplaying it in public.

The states of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont, as well as many more cities, counties and tribes, have all filed lawsuits against oil companies over climate change. 

Previous efforts to move such lawsuits to federal court have been denied by federal judges, with the Supreme Court declining to hear challenges to those rulings. 

If the Supreme Court were to move the Boulder case to federal court, it would be a major win for oil companies, who have long claimed that national regulations such as the Clean Air Act should supersede state laws. Such a ruling could open the door for many of the other cases to be removed from state courts, where the state and local governments feel they have stronger leverage. 

The case could also be complicated by the Trump administration’s recent repeal of the endangerment finding, the scientific determination that underpinned the federal government’s regulations of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. With the feds stepping back from climate regulation, some observers believe the oil companies will have a harder time claiming that state lawsuits fall under the scope of federal policy.

In a written statement to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prior to the repeal of the endangerment finding, a group of investor-owned electric utilities raised that concern. The Edison Electric Institute, in its letter to the agency, said that federal greenhouse gas emissions helped “protect the power sector” from legal claims by “displacing” lawsuits over companies’ role in contributing to climate change. 

“Should EPA remove its regulation of [greenhouse gases], it increases the likelihood that environmental non-governmental organizations, advocacy groups, citizen groups, and other parties will seek to bring new tort suits and other litigation to test the bounds of continued [Clean Air Act] displacement of federal common law,” the group wrote.

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org. 

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration took more steps Monday to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, announcing two additional interagency agreements with other departments that will transfer more of its responsibilities to those agencies.

Under the agreements, the agency will partner with the State Department on foreign gift and contract reporting and with the Department of Health and Human Services on family engagement and school support programs.

The 46-year-old department signed seven other interagency agreements in 2025 as part of an ongoing effort to dismantle itself, including with State and HHS, as well as Labor and Interior. 

“As we continue to break up the federal education bureaucracy and return education to the states, our new partnerships with the State Department and HHS represent a practical step toward greater efficiency, stronger coordination, and meaningful improvement,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. 

Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents Education Department workers, blasted the additional interagency agreements in a Monday statement. 

McMahon “is unlawfully dismantling the Education Department by moving programs and offices to other federal agencies despite a clear warning from Congress that she lacks the authority to do so,” Gittleman said. 

She added that “these moves come as the Trump Administration has attempted to fire large numbers of career public servants in these very offices — and is now trying to shift their critical work across multiple federal agencies with no educational expertise.”

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, also lambasted the announcement.

“These illegal agreements aren’t just creating pointless new bureaucracy that burdens our already-overworked teachers and schools,” she said in a statement Monday. “They are actively jeopardizing resources and support that students and families count on and are entitled to under the law.”

Foreign gifts and contracts

The Education Department clarified in fact sheets that in both agreements, it would “maintain all statutory responsibilities” and oversight of the programs involved. 

Under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, colleges and universities receiving federal financial assistance are required to disclose any foreign gifts or contracts valued above $250,000 annually. 

Under the agreement, State will help the Education Department in managing its foreign funding reporting portal, where colleges and universities are responsible for disclosing such transactions. 

State will also “use its national security and foreign national academic admissions expertise to review and assess the industry’s compliance with the law, share data with the public and federal stakeholders, and identify potential threats,” the Education Department said. 

HHS portfolio grows

Under the agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS will take on a “growing role” in administering several programs that are currently housed under the Education Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. 

The programs include the School Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV), School Safety National Activities, Ready to Learn Programming, Full-Service Community Schools, Promise Neighborhoods and Statewide Family Engagement Centers, the Education Department said. 

The School Emergency Response to Violence program helps schools recover from a violent event, according to the department. 

Ready to Learn Programming “supports the development of educational television and digital media targeted at preschool and early elementary school children and their families,” according to the department.  

The Full-Service Community Schools program offers academic, social and health services for students in high-poverty areas and their families. 

According to the department, a Promise Neighborhood is a “place-based, collective impact approach to improving results for children and families.” The program aims to make it so that participating children “have access to great schools and strong systems of family and community support.”

The Statewide Family Engagement Centers program seeks to provide financial assistance to organizations helping state and local educational agencies to improve family engagement.

Abolishing the department

Since taking office, Trump has sought to take an axe to the agency in his quest to move education “back to the states.” The U.S. Supreme Court in July 2025 temporarily greenlit mass layoffs and a plan to dramatically downsize the Education Department ordered earlier that year.

That plan, outlined in a March 2025 executive order signed by Trump, called on McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of her own department.

Meanwhile, Congress earlier this year rebuked Trump’s request to dramatically slash funding for the department as he and his administration seek to do away with it.

Trump signed a measure earlier in February that funds the department at $79 billion this fiscal year — roughly $217 million more than the agency’s fiscal 2025 funding level and a whopping $12 billion above what Trump sought.

Though the spending package does not offer ironclad language to prevent the outsourcing of the Education Department’s responsibilities to other agencies, the measure does direct the Education Department and the agencies that are part of the transfers to provide biweekly briefings to lawmakers on the implementation of any interagency agreements.

The American Birkebeiner “Birkie” cross-country ski races from Cable to Hayward just concluded on Saturday, Feb. 21. It was the 52nd annual running of the marathon races.

The Birkie is part of the Worldloppet Ski Federation, an international association of marathon cross-country ski races held in Europe, the Americas, New Zealand, Australia, China, and Japan.

There were over 600 skiers at the 2026 Birkie who are Worldloppet Ski Federation Passport Members: those who are officially documenting their Worldloppet races to qualify as masters, or those who have skied in 10 Worldloppet races. Many of those Passport skiers are Americans, but they also include several hundred international skiers.

International skiers expressed concern about traveling to the Birkebeiner this year, during the federal immigration crackdown in Minneapolis. American Birkebeiner Ski Foundation Executive Director Ben Popp reported receiving several calls from international skiers prior to the 52nd Birkie after the international skiers had viewed the demonstrations in nearby Minneapolis and videos of Renee Good and Alex Pretti being shot and killed by federal agents. 

Several international skiers who came to Hayward told the Examiner they were very aware of the news coming out of Minneapolis, and there had been some concerns raised, but not enough to keep them from participating in the sport they love.

Thomas Hejek and his wife, Blanca Hajkova of the Czech Republic spoke with the Examiner  on Wednesday, Feb. 18, as Hejek was waiting to ski in an open event on Thursday, and both he and his wife prepared to participate in the marathon races on Saturday.

Hejek has skied in several Worldloppet races, including races in Canada and Japan. Their trip to the Birkie was organized over a month ago, before the shooting of Renee Good.

Hejek said it wasn’t the violence in Minneapolis that caused the most concern for skiers in his country, but rather the overall perception of politics in America.

“We know that most of our friends just don’t want to come right now to the United States, not just because of Minneapolis, but because of the politics,” said Hejek. “But it’s not, it wasn’t a big deal for us, because I think that mostly the people here, around the Birkie and in Hayward and Cable are really lovely and really friendly, because I know it from two years ago, so we didn’t think about not going to the United States.”

He added, “Sometimes, some of my friends were surprised that we were going. But you know, we also in the Czech Republic have a very bad government, and we just have to deal with it, and also the situation in Minneapolis, our friends from the United States were warning us to go directly with plane to Duluth or something, but we just fly to Minneapolis, and took the car and just drive here. We didn’t stay in Minneapolis because we were a little bit scared.”

On Thursday, Feb. 19, Esa Sainio of Finland completed his first Birkie Open marathon race. Recently, he completed a race in Canada and drove from Ottawa to Hayward, and after the Birkie, he intended to ski in Sweden.

“We saw everything that was happening here,” he said of news coming from America, especially out of Minneapolis. “But one of our friends from Minnesota said it wasn’t so bad from there. Everything is not so bad.”

Several skiers spoke with the Examiner on Friday, Feb. 20 at the Worldloppet Foundation Breakfast featuring international skiers.

Epp Paal of Estonia is the CEO of the Worldloppet Ski Foundation. She didn’t think international skiers had concerns about American political upheaval in coming to the 2026 Birkie.

“Do skiers like the current politics of the U.S.? I don’t believe so, but they like the races, and they come to the race itself,” she said. “So I don’t believe that this is something to do with politics. Just love of skiing is bringing them here.”

She added, “I think this Worldloppet is all about love of skiing and friendship. And this drives these people, and they know so many other fellow skiers from the U.S., and many have developed deep friendships here, so it doesn’t really matter for them.”

Jaagup and Janek Vana, two brothers from Tartu, Estonia, said they had not seen much news from Minneapolis before coming, and they didn’t have concerns about politics or immigration. Their biggest concern was whether there would be enough snow for the Birkie races.

“We just hoped they didn’t cancel the races because of snow,” said Jaagup. “The violence didn’t, doesn’t really matter to us. It wasn’t a concern.”

Janek added that because Hayward is a small, rural area, the two brothers didn’t think there would be anything to be concerned about.

Alena Motyckova of the Czech Republic, was scheduled to ski the Birkie Classic, 53K race on Saturday.

“Of course, we watched what was going on,” she said, “but we just flew [into the] Minneapolis airport, and then we got a car and drove up here, so we did not really worry. It did not make us think to even reconsider coming here to the state, but of course, we took it seriously, like the chances of being stopped by immigration, but it went smoothly.”

However, one of the Czech Republic skiers in Motyckova’s original group didn’t receive the required immigration documents and couldn’t attend.

Jan Vondras of the Czech Republic, one of the seven who did make it, said he had emailed Popp and other Birkie staff discussing the journey to Hayward and concerns over immigration.

“Ben said, ‘If you have any troubles with the immigration officers or police, just call me,’ so we were quite OK that we had somebody behind us who could help us, but actually, nothing happened,” said Vondras.

Gerard Agnellet of France, winner of the 2025 men’s Birkie skate, who placed fourth on Saturday, talked to the Examiner via a translator.

“We knew it would be different from past years,” he said, “so we were a little more surprised and concerned about our paperwork to get into the US, but there was no problem at all. It went smoothly as in past years.”

Fabian Stocek of the Czech Republic won the Birkie Classic in 2025 and again on Saturday.

On the ride from Minneapolis airport to Hayward for the Birkie, Stocek said, he passed a Department of Homeland Security vehicle, but he wasn’t worried.

Stocek has lived in the U.S. for seven years and has a good relationship with a host family in the Hayward area who houses him when he competes.

“I think they (his host family) were more concerned about my behalf than I was,” he said. “so I do follow the U.S. news quite a bit, and I think for me it was, they were like, ‘Oh, watch out, they’re checking phones when you get in’ and, and I thought, OK, I mean, I’ve lived in the U.S. for seven years, so I wasn’t as worried.” 

 At the Worldloppet Foundation breakfast, a Swiss skier said he didn’t want to make any comments to the press in case his words were noticed by immigration officials and caused him problems later.

Dan Mitchell of Hayward, who attended the breakfast, said he recently skied in Worldloppet races in France and Germany and noticed that all flights to and in Europe were full, but the flight back from London to O’Hare Airport in Chicago had several empty seats.

A hearing is set for Tuesday in a federal lawsuit led by Louisiana seeking to further restrict access to mifepristone by asking the courts to stop abortion pills from being mailed across the country. 

The Department of Justice has argued plaintiffs lack standing to bring the case and asked the judge to halt legal proceedings until the Food and Drug Administration wraps up a review of the medication. 

Hundreds of studies have concluded that the drug is safe and effective for abortions early in pregnancy, but a paper released by a conservative think tank last year compelled Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to order a reevaluation of mifepristone.  

The state of Louisiana and a woman who said her ex-boyfriend made her take abortion medication sued the FDA in October and asked for a preliminary injunction against a 2023 rule that allows abortion pills to be prescribed through telehealth or mailed to patients, and pharmacies to apply for certification to dispense mifepristone. 

Julie Kay, the founder and CEO of legal advocacy group Reproductive Futures, told States Newsroom the lawsuits in Louisiana and elsewhere are “thinly veiled attempts” to block access to telehealth medication abortion. 

“We’ve seen that telemedicine abortion has become incredibly popular in all 50 states and particularly vital for women in under-resourced areas,” Kay said. 

Missouri, Idaho, Kansas, Texas and Florida are also suing the FDA over mifepristone’s regulations and asking the courts to restrict or rescind approval of the drug altogether.

Nearly 30% of abortions provided in the first half of 2025 were through telehealth, according to the Society of Family Planning’s latest #WeCount report. 

By June 2025, about 15,000 abortions per month were provided by physicians shielded by state laws, allowing them to prescribe abortion medication remotely to people living in states where abortion is banned or restricted, the report found. Shield laws protecting health care professionals from out-of-state investigations have held up in court so far, despite efforts from prosecutors in Texas and Louisiana. 

Republican Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill vowed to defend anti-abortion laws in her state, which has had a ban with no exceptions for rape or incest since August 2022. She indicted a California doctor in January, accusing him of mailing abortion pills to Rosalie Markezich, a plaintiff in the lawsuit before federal courts. 

Lawyers for Louisiana argue that the Biden administration’s decision to nix the in-person dispensation requirement for mifepristone is an affront to states that ban abortion. 

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Erik Baptist framed the lawsuit as an intimate partner violence issue, saying Markezich’s former boyfriend ordered abortion pills online from Dr. Rémy Coeytaux in California without any in-person interaction. 

“So what this lawsuit would do is protect women across the country, in particular in Louisiana, from this mail-order abortion scheme that enables and emboldens people in coercive situations, such as men and abusers who can now obtain these drugs through remote means,” Baptist said. 

Reproductive coercion — when an abusive partner controls a person’s bodily autonomy — has been brought up in recent legal challenges to abortion pill access by other GOP attorneys general in bids to restrict mifepristone, according to Rachel Rebouché, a University of Texas at Austin law professor who specializes in reproductive rights. 

“There’s really not evidence that people are being coerced or forced into taking pills. It’s, of course, awful if someone has felt coerced, but I’m not sure it changes the argument of what the FDA should do as an agency committed to reviewing evidence,” Rebouché said. 

For their part, DOJ attorneys have said an injunction would interfere with the FDA review and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies, setting off an avalanche of other lawsuits. 

“Plaintiffs now threaten to short circuit the agency’s orderly review and study of the safety risks of mifepristone by asking this Court for an immediate stay of the 2023 REMS Modification approved three years ago,” they wrote in a memo filed on Jan. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. 

Kay said she views the Trump administration’s motion to pause the case as a legal delay tactic that is more about politics than science, because most Americans believe abortion should be accessible. A Pew Research Center poll from June 2025 showed 63% of respondents said abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

“This federal administration is very aware of that popularity, and I think they’re saying they want to wait until after the midterms,” Kay said.

Baptist said the FDA can conduct their review while the in-person requirement is restored. 

Mifepristone’s manufacturers intervened in the case earlier this month, Louisiana Illuminator reported. But unlike the federal government, GenBioPro and Danco, the companies behind the generic and name brand versions of the drug, asked the court to dismiss Louisiana’s lawsuit entirely. 

In a memo filed on Tuesday, Feb. 17, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the 2023 regulatory change “was intended to authorize a direct attack” on anti-abortion states. 

The filing also rejects arguments that Louisiana and Markezich lack standing in the same way that a group of anti-abortion doctors did in a lawsuit against the FDA over mifepristone’s previous regulations, according to a 2024 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Justices rebuffed the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine’s requests but did not rule on the merits of the case.

Baptist also said judicial panels on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana — a conservative-leaning court where this lawsuit could go next — have twice ruled that it was “arbitrary and capricious” for the FDA to allow abortion medication without an in-person doctor visit. 

In Louisiana’s corner are major anti-abortion players: Students for Life of America, 60 Republican members of Congress, 21 GOP attorneys general and the Ethics and Public Policy Center filed briefs backing the state. 

Rebouché, the University of Texas professor, said there would be conflict between the federal courts if the district court judge rules in favor of Louisiana. There are nearly a dozen lawsuits over abortion pills seeking to restrict and deregulate mifepristone, States Newsroom reported.

Guttmacher Institute Principal Federal Policy Adviser Anna Bernstein said in a statement Friday that reinstating the in-person dispensation requirement for mifepristone would hinder abortion access. 

“If access to telehealth and mifepristone by mail is curtailed, more patients would be pushed toward in-clinic care, straining provider capacity and increasing wait times in an already chaotic landscape,” she said. “Given that travel is out of reach for many people, the result would likely be increased delays and more people unable to get the abortion care they need and deserve.” 

Kelcie Moseley-Morris contributed to this report. 

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed a proclamation Monday to honor  families whose loved ones were killed by noncitizens, but spent most of the event complaining about his approval ratings and amplifying the falsehood that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.

While signed Monday, the proclamation designated the day earlier as one to honor such families, coinciding with the anniversary of the killing of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley on Feb. 22, 2024, by a Venezuelan immigrant. The man was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison for her murder.

The White House event came on the eve of Trump’s State of the Union, where he is expected to not only address immigration policy – as the Department of Homeland Security has been shut down since Feb. 14 – but also last week’s Supreme Court decision that found he exceeded his authority for tariffs. 

Congress is gridlocked on approving annual funding for DHS after an immigration enforcement surge in Minneapolis resulted in the deaths of two U.S. citizens last month.

Trump criticized Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey on Monday for calling for an end to the immigration enforcement operation in his city after Renee Good was shot and killed by a federal immigration officer on Jan. 7.

“I watched these people saying, ‘we want to protect murderers,’” Trump said, mischaracterizing state and local officials’ positions against aggressive immigration enforcement. “I don’t get it, there’s something sick. They’re sick. Can’t have a country like that.” 

After the second killing, of Alex Pretti on Jan. 24, congressional Democrats withheld support for DHS funding unless constraints could be placed on immigration enforcement tactics.

The proclamation reaffirms the Trump administration’s commitment to its mass deportation campaign, citing the need due to crime committed by noncitizens. Multiple studies have shown that immigrants in the U.S. commit crimes at a lower rate than the U.S. born population, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank that studies migration.

Trump largely blamed former President Joe Biden’s immigration policy for creating a crisis. 

“They let in everybody,” he said. “They didn’t check anybody.” 

Questioning polls

Trump also expressed anger at various polls on his approval rating. Some, such as one by CNN, have shown Trump’s disapproval at more than 60% with approval ratings below 40%, marking the worst numbers of his second term.

“Fake polls,” Trump said, without offering evidence. “They were fake polls, because polls are tough. I saw one today that I’m at 40%. I’m not at 40%. I’m at much higher than that. The real polls say ‘you kill everybody.’ It wouldn’t even be close. But you go through the fake polls, you go through the fake stories.”

Trump also falsely stated that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him, despite then-Attorney General William Barr stating the election was secure and there was no widespread voter fraud. Trump also lost dozens of court cases attempting to challenge the election results. 

Trump goaded a mob of his supporters to attack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in an effort to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s election. 

“It was a rigged election by millions and millions of votes, a guy that never left his basement,” Trump said of Biden, who won the election at the height of the coronavirus pandemic. “Covid was a little bit of a shield. We had a lot of things going on, but it was rigged by millions of votes. We did great in that election. If that election wasn’t rigged, every single one of the people in this room right now would not be here. You’d be home with your son, daughter, family. We had a strong border.”

Trump also falsely stated that he was a victim of voter fraud in the 2024 presidential election, but that he still won because “it was too big to rig.”

“They cheated like hell,” he said of Democrats.

He criticized mail-in ballots and said it benefited Democrats. Trump said because of that, a national voter ID law is needed, and he pushed for Congress to pass the SAVE Act, which requires proof of citizenship, among other things.

“They won’t approve voter ID,” he said of Democrats. “They won’t approve proof of citizenship. They won’t approve no mail-in ballots, even though they know it’s crooked as hell.” 

Support for Trump immigration agenda

The families, referred to as angel families, have had various loved ones killed by a person who was not a U.S. citizen. In response, they have lobbied for immigration restrictions. 

“I’m sick and tired of hearing these Democratic politicians stand up on these podiums and say how sorry they are for seeing these criminal illegal aliens being ripped apart from their families,” said Jody Jones, whose brother was shot and killed by an immigrant. “What about us? What about the American family?”

Several other family members spoke, including Riley’s mother, Allyson Phillips. One of the first bills that Trump signed in his second term was a mandatory detention bill for immigrants charged and arrested on petty crimes that was named for Riley. 

Her murder set off a national debate about immigration during the 2024 presidential campaign because the man charged with her murder, came into the country in 2022, during Biden’s term. 

“Laken was the most responsible, hard-working, kind, selfless, beautiful Christian, and she wasn’t somebody that put herself in bad positions,” Phillips said.

Some of the family members who spoke also expressed their belief that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. 

Marie Vega, whose son was shot and killed by an immigrant, said she was excited when the 2024 presidential election results came in. She said she fully supports the president and repeated an abbreviation for Trump’s political movement known as Make America Great Again.

“Although you were cheated out of the second term — by the way, you won that election as well, and we know it — I knew the third term was going to be epic,” she said. “And here we are. MAGA.” 

Staff members at two Wisconsin mental health clinics are seeking union representation after what some employees describe as policy changes that have increased client caseloads and reduced one-on-one care for clients.

The clinics — one in Madison and one in West Allis — are owned by Wisconsin-based Rogers Behavioral Health. The Oconomowoc-based nonprofit organization operates a network of mental health hospitals, residential treatment clinics and outpatient clinics in 10 states.

Starting Monday, officials with the National Labor Relations Board will hold a hearing in Milwaukee to set union election dates for 63 employees in West Allis and 35 in Madison.

The hearing is expected to take up to three days, according to documents filed with the NLRB by a lawyer representing Rogers. The case will entail “extensive testimonial and documentary evidence” about which employees at each location should be included in the vote, the attorney stated in a motion to schedule the hearing and reserve the dates.

Workers at the West Allis and Madison locations want to join the National Union of Healthcare Workers. The California-based NUHW already represents Rogers employees at three locations in California as well as one in Pennsylvania.

Three employees at the West Allis clinic have been fired, according to the union, which has filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB. The union is accusing Rogers of violating federal labor law by retaliating against the terminated health professionals for supporting the union.

The Wisconsin Examiner sent email messages to Rogers Friday morning, Feb. 20, seeking comment about the union drive, and at the invitation of the organization’s communications office sent five questions Friday afternoon. Rogers has not responded; this report will be updated with comments Rogers supplies.

Clinic employees cite increased caseloads

Employees involved in the union drive said in interviews that they and their colleagues enjoyed their jobs and caring for their patients. But recent changes, they said, have made their work more difficult and didn’t benefit patients.

“When I first started, people were pretty happy and satisfied with their roles,” said T’Anna Holst, a therapist who works at the West Allis clinic. “As time goes on, caseloads kept increasing for therapists.”

Other program changes reduced patients’ ability to have individual time with their clinicians, which “was really unfortunate for us, but also for the patients, who were expecting that when they come to our program,” Holst said.

“All of the changes were about increasing the number of patients that were coming into the building,” said Stephanie Lohman, a nurse practitioner. “It did not seem to have a cohesive plan and no plan would be communicated.”

Lohman said she is one of the three employees fired from the West Allis clinic, and that her termination came the Monday after she and nearly a dozen other coworkers had presented a petition seeking union recognition. When she directly asked the upper level executive who fired her, she said, she was explicitly told  she was being dismissed “without cause.”

“Our local leaders, including my direct boss, were not aware this was happening,” Lohman said, adding that she was not given time to prepare notes in order to transfer coverage for the patients in her care.

Patient advocacy

At the Madison clinic, Erin Quinlan is a behavioral specialist whose job includes assisting therapists and helping to conduct group therapy sessions.

“The people that I work with are incredible,” Quinlan said. “They care very, very deeply about the work that they do and having a positive impact on the lives of patients.”

After she was hired in July 2024, “Caseloads increased and individual time with patients was decreasing,” Quinlan said. “I just became concerned about how that was impacting our being able to support those patients.”

Coworkers shared those concerns, she said.

Employees said they were left with the impression that the changes that concerned them were coming from higher up in the organization’s hierarchy, not their local managers.

Lohman said that in measuring staff productivity, the organization moved to relying on “metrics like visits per day.” That replaced a system that took into account that some patients needed more time than others, she said.

Increased caseloads were presented as ways to increase the number of patients being served, Lohman said, but instead, employees were working “to their maximum capacity, ignoring actual patient or worker needs.”

At the clinic level, “Rogers is run by caring professionals,” she said. “Despite the corporate push to do metric care, patient-centered care continues to be done.”

All three employees said they and their coworkers believed forming a union and being able to bargain collectively would give them a stronger voice as advocates for their patients.

“I take being an advocate and speaking up as a very important part of my job,” Quinlan said. She added that she routinely sought to raise concerns with “anyone who would listen, including management.”

She said she got no response, however. “It was because I didn’t really see any return communication, that was when I made the decision to go to the union,” Quinlan said.

Both the Madison and West Allis groups initially petitioned for Rogers to voluntarily recognize the union, citing large majorities of supporters. The organization rejected those requests, and union supporters then sent petitions for elections to the NLRB.

Union represents other Rogers workers

The NUHW grew out of a California health care union that was founded in the 1930s and subsequently joined what would later become the Service Employees International Union. After an acrimonious split from SEIU in 2009, the National Union of Healthcare Workers formed as an independent union.

An unsigned memo from the organization urging employees to vote against the union was briefly posted at the Madison clinic in the days after members petitioned for union representation Jan. 23. The Wisconsin Examiner obtained a photograph of the memo, which employees said was later taken down.

The memo describes the union as having “no experience or connection in Wisconsin.” It does not state that Rogers employees in four other U.S. clinics are now represented by the union.

Employees at a Rogers mental health and addiction services clinic in Walnut Creek, California, voted for the union to represent them in 2023 and settled a first contract in 2024.

“It’s an excellent contract,” said NUHW’s communications director, Matt Artz, and included “substantial salary increases and caseload limits,” according to the union’s website.

After employees at Rogers clinics in Los Angeles and San Diego petitioned for union representation, the union was recognized voluntarily at those locations, which then negotiated contracts similar to the agreement at Walnut Creek, Artz said. In December 2025, a Rogers clinic in Philadelphia also voluntarily recognized the union after being petitioned by employees there. 

“This is in response to the recent arrests of four local community members, which have impacted not only multiple families but also many others throughout the surrounding region. We are demanding details about the nature of the advance notice of federal officers used to notify the Eau Claire (County) Sheriff’s Department, as well as body cam footage from the officers on the scene,” said Gerardo Licon, a member of the advocacy group El Centro de Conexion de Chippewa Valley.

Licon was speaking to a group of roughly 100 at an ICE Out Now! demonstration near the Altoona City Police Department on Saturday afternoon, Feb. 21.

The protest, organized by area Chippewa Valley advocacy groups, was responding  to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detaining four people on Tuesday, Feb. 17.

The coalition is questioning the level of cooperation between local law enforcement, including the Eau Claire County Sheriff’s Department and the city of Altoona Police Department, with ICE, as well as the narrative offered by Eau Claire County Sheriff Dave Riewestahl about what transpired on Feb.17

Riewestahl said in a press release late Feb. 17 that his office was contacted by ICE agents who said they would be at a construction site in the city of Altoona, near the city of Eau Claire, to arrest a suspect who had allegedly assaulted a law enforcement officer.

Riewestahl later told the Examiner the construction site was off 9 Mile Creek Road, just over a quarter mile from the Altoona Elementary School.

The Examiner heard concerns expressed by local residents that the enforcement action occurred in the afternoon, near dismissal time at the school, but in a voicemail to the Examiner, Altoona School Superintendent Dr. Heidi Elopaulos said the school district had heard no concerns.

“The law enforcement activity that occurred in our community on Feb. 17 had no involvement with and no impact on the School District of Altoona,” she said.

After ICE agents attempted to arrest the suspect, Riewestahl said, four individuals fled the construction site, and one was apprehended.

The sheriff said three who fled the scene entered a residence in the town of Washington, confronted a homeowner, then went into the garage and barricaded themselves inside. The homeowner then locked the door between the house and the garage.

Riewestahl said his office was called to address a criminal trespass to a dwelling, and then county deputies requested assistance from  Altoona police.

Upon the request of the homeowner, the sheriff said, his officers entered the home and attempted to gain voluntary compliance with the three individuals in the garage, but when verbal requests failed, the officers used pepperballs, and the three surrendered.

None of the three were charged with criminal trespass, said the sheriff, because the homeowner didn’t want to press charges.

The three individuals were subsequently turned over to ICE agents.

“In talking with ICE, they said they had the authority to take them in custody for immigration activity, so we turned them over to immigration and immigration took all four of those individuals,” Riewestahl told the Examiner.

In January, after ICE agents were spotted  at the Eau Claire County Courthouse, Riewestahl told local media that his department’s policy manual for field services (patrol) and security services (jail) regarding immigration status directs patrol officers not to detain anyone accused of a “civil  violation of federal immigration laws or related civil warrants,” and that the jail is only allowed to hold individuals who have “been charged with a federal crime,” or have been issued “a warrant, affidavit of probable cause or removal order.”

Several at the demonstration said that earlier in the year, both the sheriff’s department and the Altoona Police Department had said they would not cooperate with ICE.

It is not clear if there was any level of cooperation between the two local law enforcement agencies and ICE other than possibly the sheriff allowing ICE to take the three whom local officers had removed from the garage.

Mireya Sigala, another advocate with El Centro, introduced a man she said was the brother of one of the three. The man was not identified, and he spoke in Spanish, which was translated by Licon.

“Thank you so much for the support you’re giving us, the immigrants,” he said. “Supposedly, they’re looking for criminals, but the criminals aren’t working, and our mistake was to go out and work.”

The man said his brother had never committed a crime and did not  owe anyone money.

“I felt terrible when he called and told me, ‘ICE is here, help me,’” he said. “I felt like trash. I felt like impotent that I couldn’t help him. I didn’t know what to do. There was a woman who gave him refuge in the garage, and I really appreciate that. To my understanding, after that they forcefully took them out of there.”

The brother’s version of events of a woman offering “refuge” appears to contradict the sheriff’s version that the homeowner complained of the three people trespassing  in the Town of Washington home.

Licon also said the advocates are challenging the account offered in the Feb. 17 press release and demanded that “a public statement from both Eau Claire sheriff’s office and Altoona Police Department correcting false statements and the narrative that was published on the news stories after the event, accountability and apology for working with ICE after explicitly stating they wouldn’t do that.”

The Examiner reached out to Sheriff Riewestahl for a response.

The organizers of the event, Licon said, are stressing a clear message to local law enforcement that it “exists to serve and protect the communities in which they operate.”

“They (organizers) argue the cooperation with federal immigration officers erodes trust, discourages residents from reporting crimes, and undermines public safety for everyone,” said Licon. “Our message is simple: law enforcement should be focused on protecting local community members. They work for us, not ICE.”

He added, “Public safety depends on trust, and that trust is compromised when local public safety agencies are seen to be actively assisting federal immigration enforcement officers. Given the lack of dignity and the dehumanization that immigration officers and federal agencies have demonstrated across the country toward law-abiding community members, we cannot allow these unaccountable and undertrained federal agents anywhere near our community.”

Licon also said the advocates have a list of three other demands:

* ICE and immigration officers leave Eau Claire County.

* Release any person arrested without a corresponding legal warrant signed by a judge, and a proof of a warrant used for arrest.

* That both the city police and county sheriff respond to records requests, specifically how agencies were notified by ICE, decisions made to collaborate with ICE, and body camera footage.

None of the four detained Feb. 17 were sent to the Eau Claire County Jail. The man who identified himself as the  brother of one of the three taken Feb. 17 said his brother had been taken to “Bloomington,” presumably Bloomington, Minnesota, where federal immigration offices are located.

Denise Bustanante, another advocate, said if the sheriff’s office doesn’t know who ICE was originally intending to arrest, nor the immigration status of those detained on Feb. 17, then it is possible that ICE had detained U.S. citizens.

“For all we know, those four people could be U.S. citizens in ICE detention right now,” she said.

Dang Yang, a resident for 22 years whose parents came as refugees from Laos to the U.S.  in 1979, recounted how a local Hmong man was detained by ICE for over an hour even though the man is a legal citizen.

“On Monday, Jan. 5, a local Hmong man from our community was detained at his place of employment by ICE in Eau Claire,” said Yang. “He was handcuffed; he was questioned, and even after presenting his valid Wisconsin driver’s license to ICE agents, they spent nearly an hour interrogating him. They asked him about his citizenship over and over again. In addition to that, they also attempted to interrogate him about what he knew regarding the whereabouts of any undocumented Hmong community members in the area. He was finally released after the hour-long interrogation. But the arrest is never the point. The arrest is never the point. Because it’s the impact of the intimidation and the impact of the harassment that results in people hiding away, people afraid to go to the grocery store. People are afraid to talk to their neighbors, afraid to speak up when something is wrong, afraid to be seen and deathly afraid to be heard.”

Yang said his parents told him that back in Southeast Asia, they didn’t talk to the police because of fear of intimidation, and now he sees the same type of intimidation being used by ICE.

“Growing up, they would tell me how lucky we were to have police that were relatively helpful, to have a local government that was relatively competent compared to what they had known in their home country,” said Yang, “But today, the echoes of the past return, and we still see numerous examples of federal law enforcement being just as corrupt, just as unaccountable and just as problematic with their interactions, because they could lead to people being disappeared.This is not the exception of what we have seen over the last year. This is the rule. This is why we’re angry when we see law enforcement side by side with ICE. The association itself, without any details, erodes the trust that my parents so desperately sought when they left their homes in Southeast Asia. But me, today, I cannot deny that I’m afraid, but despite that, I refuse to hide away.”

State Rep.  Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) expressed  his support for the local immigrant community saying, “Nobody in the Chippewa Valley ever has to prove their humanity in order to deserve to be safe in our community.”

He added, “I just want to thank you all for the courage that you are demonstrating, leaning into our long and storied history here of true working-class solidarity. Courage is contagious when you demonstrate it by standing up for all of our neighbors, including our immigrant neighbors. You are sharing that courage with the people around you, and while we have that long history of working-class solidarity, ICE is not some time-honored institution with this storied history in the Chippewa Valley. It is less than 30 years old, and it serves no purpose other than to be the sharp and violent edge of Trump’s fascism and authoritarianism, and so I am only here to say, I see you, I hear you, I appreciate you. I encourage you to continue.”

This story was updated at 10:04 a.m. on Monday, Feb. 23.

OTTAWA, Kan. — When Kansas began requiring residents to prove their U.S. citizenship before voting more than a decade ago, Steven Wayne Fish tried and failed.

A first-time father in his 30s at the time, he wanted a say in debates over public school funding despite having never voted before. But Fish, who was born on a since-decommissioned Air Force base in Illinois, couldn’t find his birth certificate, leaving him unable to register for the 2014 general election.

A federal court eventually blocked the Kansas law following a lawsuit in which Fish was the namesake plaintiff. For years, the Fish legal case served as a warning to politicians who wanted voters to produce documents proving their citizenship.

That’s changing, as President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress try to impose a similar proof-of-citizenship voter registration requirement nationwide through a long-shot proposal called the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act or SAVE America Act.

Blue states would have a major tool to push back. Whether they would use it is less clear.

States have the power to set separate rules for state and local elections and to apply federal restrictions only on residents voting in federal races, according to interviews with more than a dozen election experts, officials and lawmakers. Operating two distinct election systems, a process called bifurcation, would give states more freedom over who can vote in races for governor, state legislature and other down-ballot contests.

Bifurcation would ensure that individuals like Fish could still cast a ballot in some contests, even if they couldn’t vote for members of Congress or president.

“It’s very strange and surreal,” Fish told Stateline about a potential national requirement during an interview on Tuesday in Ottawa, Kansas, where he works at a warehouse. Those looking back at his state, he said, will see “it did not work at all.”

Under the U.S. Constitution, states regulate the times, places and manner of federal elections, though Congress has the authority to override them. But Congress has far less authority over state and local elections.

Brandon Fincher, managing editor of the Journal of Election Administration Research & Practice, said a national proof-of-citizenship requirement would likely generate interest in bifurcation. “I think it absolutely would,” said Fincher, who wrote a dissertation that found states are likely to adopt dual systems when their voter registration rules are threatened by federal mandates or court orders.

Bifurcation wouldn’t restrain Congress from imposing voting restrictions on federal elections. It also wouldn’t stop any changes Trump has threatened to make through executive order, but those would almost certainly face immediate challenges in federal courts. The president has no unilateral authority under the U.S. Constitution to direct how states run elections.

In the past 30 years, only a handful of states have tried a two-tier system, according to Fincher’s research. Costs and administrative barriers tend to discourage states from pursuing a dual system, election experts and officials said.

Kansas briefly had one more than a decade ago. It came amid legal fights over the state’s 2011 proof-of-citizenship law and allowed voters who signed a sworn statement that they were citizens, but didn’t provide documentation, to cast ballots for federal races but not in state and local elections.

Arizona is the only state that currently operates a two-tier system — requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to vote in state and local races, but not in federal.

Still, the country is littered with current smaller-scale efforts and past examples where states operated multiple election systems.

More than 20 cities allow some form of noncitizen voting in local races, for example, even though only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections, according to Immigrant Voting Rights, a site that tracks legal noncitizen voting. Before the 1920 ratification of the 19th Amendment, which guaranteed universal suffrage to women, some states allowed women to vote in some contests but not all. And Maryland lawmakers are currently weighing a plan to bifurcate its elections for some absentee ballots.

Wren Orey, director of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Elections Project, said more proposals to bifurcate state and federal elections could follow any congressional action.

“We’re always going to see that any time there are major federal policy changes being considered that some states are going to consider, at the very least, a system where state and local elections don’t meet those requirements,” Orey said.

Maryland weighs ‘insurance policy’

In Maryland, state lawmakers are weighing bifurcating a small portion of their absentee ballots depending on the outcome of a looming U.S. Supreme Court case involving mail ballots that arrive after Election Day.

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia offer so-called grace periods for ballots that are postmarked on or before Election Day but arrive afterward, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The Trump administration argues these ballots cannot be counted. A ruling in that case, expected later this year, will affect millions of Americans.

If the White House wins, twin bills being considered in Maryland’s House and Senate would direct election officials to tabulate all votes on those ballots except for federal offices.

Maryland state Sen. Cheryl Kagan, a Democrat sponsoring one of the bills, called the legislation an “insurance policy.”

The sponsor of the Maryland House bill, Democratic state Del. Kris Fair, said lawmakers would have to wait and see on federal actions before deciding whether the bifurcation could be expanded to cover additional restrictions on voting, but he didn’t rule it out.

Fair said additional bifurcation would be a “complicated conversation.” But he added that Maryland legislators would always seek to reduce as many barriers to voting as possible while keeping elections safe and secure.

“Every time the federal government is acting, seeking to restrict access and seeking to disenfranchise voters, we are going to immediately look at the books and see how we can bring enfranchisement back to the largest number of Maryland voters that we can,” Fair said.

A national battle

Republicans face tremendous pressure from Trump, who has called for “nationalizing” elections, to act ahead of the midterms in November to decide control of Congress.

They say new nationwide election standards are needed to guard against voter fraud, though instances of fraud are very rare. Trump has long pushed the false narrative that the 2020 election was stolen, and his administration has taken steps to keep attention focused on that race, including an FBI seizure of 2020 ballots from Fulton County, Georgia, last month.

The SAVE America Act narrowly passed the U.S. House last week and has majority support in the Senate, but faces a likely filibuster that would take 60 votes to overcome — which it does not have. The measure would require the public to produce a U.S. passport or birth certificate in most cases to register to vote. It would take effect immediately if signed into law.

The Trump administration has cast anyone opposed to the legislation as motivated by a desire to cheat.

“They want illegal people and aliens in this country to be able to vote for them and to rob the United States citizens of their vote,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said at a news conference in Arizona last week.

US House approves bill mandating proof of citizenship for voting in federal elections

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a written statement to Stateline that Trump is “committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters.”

Just a handful of years ago, some Republican legislators considered bifurcation in response to Democratic proposals during the Biden administration that sparked fears of a nationalized election system.

When a Democratic-controlled Congress in 2021 and 2022 tried to pass sweeping election legislation that included automatic voter registration, a conservative backlash led to the introduction of bills in some statehouses that sought to assert greater state authority over elections.

In 2023, the Bipartisan Policy Center found that since 2020, legislation had been offered in five states — Alaska, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Texas — that would have separated state and federal elections. One 2021 Alaska measure would have directed state officials to stop holding elections for president and Congress if new federal law created a significant conflict with Alaska regulations. No state moved forward with separating its elections.

“If the Federal Government nationalizes the election system, undermining the long tradition of mutual cooperation, or worse, the sovereign rights of a state to manage its internal election affairs, then Alaska should simply tell the federal government to run their own election, bifurcating the election process,” Mike Shower, a then-state GOP senator who sponsored the measure, wrote in a statement at the time.

Shower, now a candidate for lieutenant governor, didn’t respond to an interview request sent to his campaign.

Election officials predict complications

Whatever the motivation behind considering bifurcation, election officials and experts say the burden of running a dual system is high.

Michelle Kanter Cohen, policy director and senior counsel at Fair Elections Center, a nonpartisan voting rights organization, called the scenario a “nightmare” for election administrators because they would have to implement state and federal requirements while paying for it all.

Jamie Shew, clerk of Douglas County, Kansas, an area that includes the sprawling University of Kansas campus, said an upcoming primary election there has about 113 ballot styles — variations of ballots that voters receive depending on where they live and what party they belong to. A bifurcated system would only increase that.

“It just adds this layer of administration and complication,” said Shew, a Democrat. “It’s one of those things that as an election administration keeps you awake, because do we have it right?”

Even setting aside bifurcation, enforcing a proof-of-citizenship requirement could be costly for election officials. Bob Page, the nonpartisan registrar of voters in Orange County, California — an area with about 3.2 million residents — estimates the additional cost in his jurisdiction could exceed $6 million a year.

Page told Stateline in an email that assuming each voter could be served in 10 minutes, his office would need 59 additional staff members. He emphasized that he takes no position on legislation and will implement any changes in the law.

In Douglas County, Shew said that as Congress has debated a proof-of-citizenship requirement, he’s heard from election officials around the country who want to know about Kansas’ experience. When the state law was in effect, Shew said, he hired two additional temporary staff members to help process voter registrations.

Despite serving a university community, Shew said many of the issues his office encountered involved older voters who couldn’t locate a birth certificate or had certificates with incorrect information. In one instance, a birth certificate for someone born at a house decades ago listed when a doctor showed up, but not the date of birth. In other cases, birth certificates spelled names incorrectly.

“There’s a lot of stuff we’re going to have to record,” Shew said of the proposed SAVE America Act requirements. “If you get 100 [voter] registrations in a day, I’m going to have to go back to bringing in temporary staff just to handle that amount of extra paperwork.”

Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab, a Republican running for governor, didn’t directly answer Stateline’s questions about whether he supports the SAVE America Act or has any concerns about the ability of election officials in the state to implement the measure if it becomes law. Schwab told The Associated Press in 2024 that Kansas’ proof-of-citizenship requirement “didn’t work out so well.”

In a short written statement to Stateline this week, Schwab noted only that Kansas has had a voter ID requirement — which is different from a proof-of-citizenship requirement — for more than a decade and that all states with one benefit.

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, a Republican who championed the state’s proof-of-citizenship law while he was state secretary of state and personally defended it in court, didn’t answer questions from Stateline.

Fish, the Kansas resident who tried unsuccessfully to register to vote in 2014, said he eventually found his birth certificate in the back of a baby book, but not before it was too late for that election. A resident of Garnett, a city of about 3,200 people, Fish said he’s learned not to bring up the legal challenge often.

Many people don’t understand how it could happen to an average person, he said, adding they believe there must be a reason the person trying to register was at fault.

“It’s not really something you can change their minds on if they’re on that side,” Fish said.

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

An effort to limit the Milwaukee Common Council’s ability to shape police and fire department policy passed an Assembly vote Thursday, in the form of an amendment to a completely unrelated bill. If the measure becomes law, the council would need a unanimous vote before suspending or modifying police or fire department policy. 

The amendment was offered by Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) on Thursday, as lawmakers undertook a lengthy Assembly floor session voting on legislation. Although the amendment falls in line with past Republican moves to weaken the control local government has over law enforcement, it was attached to a bill completely unrelated to that issue. 

Donovan’s amendment was attached to a Republican bill framed as granting parents and guardians more access to medical records of minor children. The bill, among other things, would eliminate the ability for children who are at least 14 years old to contest release of their mental health records and the results of HIV testing to their parents or guardians. 

Nothing about the bill Donovan attached his amendment to involves common councils setting policy for police and fire departments. Yet this sort of maneuver was not unheard of in the lead up to the Assembly floor vote on Thursday. Republican lawmakers also amended a bill regarding hunting sandhill cranes to include provisions covering wake boat regulations. Another bill designed to provide additional court support statewide was amended to selectively remove additional public defenders from Milwaukee County. 

It’s also not the first time Republicans worked to disrupt the ability of officials in Milwaukee to oversee the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD). In 2023, after failing to pass bills backed by the Milwaukee Police Association aimed at preventing the city from ever reducing its police force and removing, forcing Milwaukee Public Schools to re-adopt school resource officers, and eliminating the policy-setting power over MPD that the Fire and Police Commission (FPC) had enjoyed for decades, Republican leaders attached those same provisions to a shared revenue deal which Milwaukee County needed in order to avoid a fiscal catastrophe.

Since the passage of the deal, FPC members and local activists alike have decried the attack on the FPC’s ability to oversee the police department. In lieu of setting policy, the FPC is able to make policy recommendations to the common council, an alternative avenue Donovan’s amendment is tailored to close.

Although the amended bill passed the Assembly, it now needs to pass in the Senate, and then to the governor’s desk. It’s unclear if the bill will gain Senate support, where several organizations have lobbied against it.

On Friday, lawmakers in the Wisconsin Assembly voted in favor of a bill seeking Medicaid coverage for people in Wisconsin prisons and jails. Supporters hope it will help recently incarcerated people avoid addiction and overdoses. 

Rep. Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison) said her experience working for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections has given her firsthand knowledge about the impact AB 604 will have. She said it will improve access to treatment and case management and ease the financial burden on justice-involved Wisconsinites. 

The bill would give incarcerated people a greater chance of maintaining sobriety and preventing overdose after release from prison, Stubbs said. After a Minnesota study about the causes of death of recently incarcerated people, researcher Tyler Winkelman said that “substance use is clearly the main driver of death after release from both jail and prison.”

Medicaid is prohibited from paying for services provided during incarceration, barring some exceptions involving inpatient services or an eligible juvenile under 21 years old. The National Association of Counties published a toolkit critical of the “inmate exclusion policy,” arguing in part that it unfairly revokes federal health benefits from people who are being detained prior to trial and have not been found guilty.  

The bill would pursue a path offered by the federal government that allows for a partial waiver of the policy. 

The proposal directs the Department of Health Services to request a waiver to conduct a demonstration project; 19 states have approved waivers and nine states including Washington D.C. have pending waivers, as of November 21. 

A waiver would allow for prerelease health care coverage under the Medical Assistance program, which provides health services to people with limited finances, for up to 90 days before release of an eligible incarcerated person. Coverage would be provided for case management services, medication-assisted treatment for all types of substance use disorders and a 30-day supply of prescription medications. 

The bill garnered support from lawmakers from both parties and from WISDOM and EX-Incarcerated People Organizing, groups that advocate for incarcerated people. 

The Assembly’s vote to seek the coverage for incarcerated people comes on the heels of its vote to accept a federal expansion of Medicaid coverage for women for one year after they give birth. 

For the waiver, if the state seeks federal Medicaid coverage for services that are currently funded with state or local dollars, the state has to reinvest any savings in state or local funds. Savings would be invested in programs to increase access to or improve the quality of health care for incarcerated people. 

In the Department of Corrections fiscal estimate, the DOC said that in fiscal year 2025, the agency spent $500,000 on the 30-day medication supply dispensed for incarcerated people pre-release, $300,000 on pre-release medication assisted treatment medications and $3.9 million on the Opening Avenues to Reentry Success (OARS) program. The OARS program supports the transition from prison to the community of incarcerated people living with a severe and persistent mental illness who are at medium-to-high risk of reoffending. 

The agency estimated it may have over $750,000 in potential cost savings if the waiver is approved and implemented. 

Because not all incarcerated people will qualify, the estimate assumes that half of the medication supply and medication assisted treatment medications costs will be reimbursed, as well as 10% of the OARS program costs. There may be other costs DOC can have reimbursed.

AB 604 would require the Department of Health Services to submit the waiver request no later than Jan. 1, 2027. 

The bill now goes to the state Senate. Supporters of the bill include the Wisconsin Medical Society, the National Alliance on Mental Illness Wisconsin, the Medical College of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Counties Association. 

The Wisconsin Assembly passed a bill that will ban Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients from being able to buy soda and candy with their benefits and will provide funding and positions to the state Department of Health Services to help preempt the state from being penalized by the federal government. 

Lawmakers also approved a bill aimed at having the state turn SNAP data over to the Trump administration.

Gov. Tony Evers and lawmakers have been discussing providing additional funding and positions to the state Department of Health Services to ensure the state keeps its payment error rate low, to avoid costly federal penalties enacted as part of a huge national tax cut and spending bill.

A SNAP provision in the federal tax and spending law signed by President Donald Trump last year would penalize states for having a payment error rate above 6%. The Evers administration has estimated a penalty due to the error rate could cost the state up to $205 million. Evers recently urged lawmakers in his State of the State address on Tuesday to provide money to the state agency to keep the error rate low and avoid potential penalties.

Lawmakers attached the money and positions to AB 180 in an amendment. The bill passed 71-22 with 23 Democrats joining Republicans in favor of the bill. 

The amendment included about $69 million and 70 positions for the agency to help ensure quality control of SNAP — also known as FoodShare in Wisconsin — and keep the error rate low.

When it comes to the candy and soda ban provisions, the Wisconsin DHA would need to submit a waiver to the federal government for approval to make the change to the program. 

Under the leadership of U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, the Trump administration has pushed for the ban across the country as a part of his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved waivers for 18 states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, so far, and there are at least five states that are actively implementing the ban.

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) criticized the bill, saying it “has nothing to do with health,” mentioning he sees people drinking Diet Mountain Dew and other beverages in the Legislature’s chambers, and that the bill is merely “punishing people for poverty.” He also said it is “shameful” to use the candy and soda ban bill to move the money and positions forward. 

“I’m glad that with the amendment there are necessary dollars here that are coming to help our agencies provide dozens of staff members to push back on the onslaught from the Trump regime,” Clancy said. An amendment to the bill includes $3.5 million to help with development and administration of a food stamp platform that is meant to ensure grocery stores can follow the ban. 

Rep. Russell Goodwin (D-Milwaukee) said lawmakers shouldn’t be “policing check-out lanes” and that the bill will create a two-tiered system where poor families have their food choices restricted. 

Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie) said that the bill would ensure that taxpayers are not paying the costs of people eating unhealthy foods. 

“The original intent… was to go down a path to start looking at what we’re feeding our children, what we’re feeding our families and what’s that doing to our families,” Moses said, adding that he has been interested in the issue long before the “Make America Healthy Again” movement. 

Moses said “the amount of money that we could lose from the federal government is astronomical” if the bill doesn’t become law.

Under the bill, candy is defined as “any solid, semi-solid, or molded preparation of sugar, sweeteners, whether natural or artificial, or chocolate, with or without added ingredients such as flavorings, fruit, nuts, or flour, that is commonly marketed, advertised, or recognized as candy, chocolate bar, chewing gum, or similar confectionery and includes chocolate bars, including chocolate bars containing flour, hard candies, gummies, caramels, taffy, licorice, mints, and chewing gum.” It does not include baked goods. 

Soda is defined as a “nonalcoholic beverage that contains natural or artificial sweeteners, including soda, pop, cola, energy drinks, sports drinks, or flavored water, or any product, regardless of its ingredients or labeling, that is marketed, labeled, or advertised as a soda, pop, cola, energy drink or energy supplement.” It does not include beverages that include milk or coffee or unsweetened tea.

A separate bill would require Wisconsin to compile and turn over data to the federal government on all Wisconsin FoodShare recipients since 2020 in accordance with a July letter from the federal Department of Agriculture. The Trump administration says it is seeking the data so it can investigate fraud and has threatened to cut off SNAP benefits to states that don’t comply. The Assembly passed the bill, AB 1027, in a 54-39 vote with Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) joining Republicans in favor.

On behalf of Wisconsin, Attorney General Josh Kaul joined a lawsuit with 21 other states to block the order. A federal judge in California recently granted the request for a temporary restraining order.

Rep. Ryan Spaude (D-Ashwaubenon) accused his Republican colleagues of being “happy to take up the bidding of the Trump administration” with the passage of the bill. 

No Republicans spoke on the bill. 

Evers has expressed opposition to turning over the data, saying that Wisconsin’s system works. He told WISN 12 in December that the SNAP system is “analyzed every single year and we feel confident in it.” 

“We have people in the state of Wisconsin that need help making sure they’re having nutritious meals. We feel the program right now is working just fine,” he said. 

Both bills need to pass the Senate before they go to Evers.

More than 30 months after Gov. Tony Evers signed the 2023-25 biennial budget into law, setting aside $125 million to help Wisconsin communities mitigate PFAS pollution in the state’s drinking water, the Wisconsin Assembly on Friday unanimously passed two bills to get the money out the door. 

This is the second time legislation to spend the money has reached this point after Evers vetoed a PFAS bill in 2024 over objections that the bill was too friendly to polluters. Since the money was set aside, the issue has been mired in partisan feuding. 

As the Assembly scrambled to finish its work by its self-imposed Friday deadline before lawmakers head home to campaign for reelection, negotiations over the specific language of the legislation pushed the vote, initially scheduled for Thursday, past 8:30 p.m. on Friday evening. 

The two bills were among the last pieces of legislation the Assembly voted on in normal session before adjourning. 

The bill establishes programs to spend the money through grants for private well owners and municipal drinking water systems, boosting the state’s testing capabilities and research into PFAS at Universities of Wisconsin institutions. 

Republicans, with the support of business groups, have been trying to craft legislation that protects “innocent landowners” from being held responsible for PFAS pollution while Democrats and environmental groups have argued the initial bill too widely defined “innocent,” letting polluters off the hook while weakening the state’s toxic spills law. 

The return of the bill this session was met with renewed optimism that a bipartisan agreement could be reached. However, after Republicans narrowed the definition of innocent landowners, business groups such as Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and representatives of the state’s paper industry abandoned the effort, saying they couldn’t support the proposal anymore. 

Throughout the two and a half years of debate, residents of communities affected by PFAS pollution have continued to struggle, often calling for the Legislature to instead enact standards for the acceptable level of PFAS in the state’s groundwater — the source of drinking water for the hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites with private wells. 

PFAS pollution has affected larger communities such as Madison and Wausau and small communities such as French Island near La Crosse and the town of Stella near Rhinelander. The class of man-made chemical compounds was widely used in certain kinds of firefighting foams and household goods such as nonstick pans and fast-food wrappers. PFAS have been connected to health problems such as developmental problems in children and certain types of cancer. 

On the floor of the Assembly Friday evening, with lawmakers desperate to hit the road, only three representatives spoke on the bill. 

Rep. Lori Palmeri (D-Oshkosh), a member of the environment committee that produced the bills, touted the measures as a “great compromise” despite late-night final revisions to the bill, while Rep. Jill Billings (D-La Crosse) recounted the “horrifying” struggles PFAS contamination has caused for her constituents on French Island. 

Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), one of the bill’s authors, said the bill is a “small step” toward fully solving the PFAS problem in the state but that the body was finally passing a bill that was the hardest to get across the finish line of his whole career in the Assembly. 

Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), one of the co-authors and lead negotiators on the PFAS legislation, celebrated the compromise that came from long negotiations with Evers and the Department of Natural Resources. 

“Today’s vote in the Assembly will bring a massive, multiyear effort to address PFAS contamination in Wisconsin even closer to fruition,” he said in a release sent before 6 p.m. Thursday, more than a day before the Assembly actually voted. “Wisconsinites across the state have suffered for far too long from PFAS polluting their land and water. Bill passage will put innocent communities and landowners on the best path forward to remediate PFAS while ensuring they are not punished or forced into bankruptcy over pollution they did not cause.”

In a week in which the Assembly broke through on a handful of issues that have long been mired in the Legislature’s partisan muck, Wimberger said the bipartisan compromise was notable. 

“Even a broken squirrel can find a clock twice a day,” he said.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump told governors Friday during a meeting at the White House he has no plans to surge federal immigration operations in states where it’s not wanted. 

New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul said during an afternoon press conference with several other governors that Trump was asked during the closed-door meeting about what lessons he learned from immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota, where federal officers killed two U.S. citizens. 

“The president said, ‘We’ll only go where we’re wanted.’ And said, for example, ‘I won’t go to New York unless Kathy calls and says she wants me to come to New York,’” she said. “I took that as a very positive outcome from this meeting. And I would want to hold him and the administration to that statement.”

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, vice chair of the National Governors Association, said Democratic governors were able to express “how problematic” actions by immigration enforcement officials have been, especially after Republicans in Congress drastically increased funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as Customs and Border Protection in their signature tax and spending cuts law.  

“We were actually encouraged to hear the president say that one of the takeaways from Minnesota was that he only wants to go places that he is welcomed. So we were very glad to hear that,” he said. “I want to be very clear that until we can have an accountable agency, the type of surge that we saw in Minnesota is not welcome in the state of Maryland.”

Louisiana Republican Gov. Jeff Landry said during the press conference at the NGA’s winter conference there have been “no problems” with federal immigration enforcement actions in his state. 

“Why? Because it was a completely integrated operation under which local, state and federal partners worked together,” he said. “We did not allow people to break our laws and get in the way and impede law enforcement in doing their lawful duty.” 

Landry said Trump “made it very clear, if you don’t want our help, we won’t give you any help.”

Tariffs ruling interrupts meeting

Governors from throughout the country traveled to Washington, D.C., this week to attend their annual winter conference and meet with Trump at the White House, though that meeting was diverted somewhat after the Supreme Court ruled on tariffs. 

Trump is scheduled to host a black tie dinner for some of the governors this weekend, though he decided not to invite certain Democrats to that event, provoking controversy throughout the lead-up to the governors’ meeting. 

Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, chairman of the National Governor’s Association, said during the afternoon press conference the morning meeting with Trump included 12 GOP and 10 Democratic governors. 

“It was overall a really productive meeting and a great show of ‘Hey, here is how the governors can come before the president and bring up issues that affect all of us,’” he said. 

Moore said the White House meeting was “productive” and “a chance for us to be able to share our thoughts and our perspectives and our ideas with the Cabinet secretaries and the agency heads and with the president himself.”

“We had a chance to talk about the things that matter to the people of our states. We had a chance to speak with Cabinet secretaries about energy prices and how we have to have a singular focus to bring energy prices down,” he said. “We had a chance to speak with the Transportation secretary about transportation issues. In the case of Maryland, it was the American Legion Bridge and the Francis Scott Key Bridge.”

Moore added the meeting was an important opportunity to “speak truth to power” and show that bipartisanship still exists on certain issues.

Sewage spill, Gateway Tunnel 

Moore said he didn’t bring up Trump blaming him for a sewage spill that began with a discharge into the Potomac River in the District of Columbia, opting instead to use the meeting to focus on talking with Cabinet secretaries on infrastructure, natural disaster relief and housing. 

“I am here to focus on helping the people of my state,” he said. “I am not going to spend a second talking about a petty attack that the president of the United States had.”

Hochul said she appreciated the Cabinet secretaries were at the meeting and that governors were able to talk with them about several issues. 

“I was able to talk about the Gateway Tunnel and keeping the funding on for the largest infrastructure project in America today,” she said, referring to a project to build new rail track between New York and New Jersey under the Hudson River. “We’d like to keep our offshore wind on and not have to go to court constantly to get that turned back on.”

North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein said he was able to speak directly with Trump about the state’s ongoing recovery needs from Hurricane Helene.

“We’ve got to rebuild houses. We’ve got to rebuild roads and bridges. We’ve got to rebuild businesses. And we cannot do that in North Carolina without the partnership of the federal government,” he said. “We have a $13.5 billion request with (the Office of Management and Budget) and with the Congress. And I asked the president and he said that they are eager to talk about that. 

“So I came away very encouraged that he will bring renewed focus from this administration to help western North Carolina recover from Hurricane Helene.”

Landry said the Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs, which was released during the meeting, “completely overshadowed, which, in my opinion, was getting ready to be a very productive meeting with the president.”

“It was unfortunate that the Supreme Court came out with a bad ruling at that time because I think we were going to have a great meeting,” he said. 

Trump vowed to keep the tariffs in place under other authorities he believes he holds during an afternoon press conference at the White House, where he also rebuked the six Supreme Court justices who wrote “that (the International Economic Emergency Powers Act) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” 

Hochul disagreed with the assertion the Supreme Court’s decision wasn’t the right one. 

“I think the Supreme Court, many of whom are appointees by the president, sided with supporting the Constitution and doing what’s right,” she said. “So we support this decision and hope that we can continue to find ways to work together to drive down costs, not do the opposite as we saw tariffs do in our states.”

During its final planned floor session this week, the Wisconsin State Assembly passed a constitutional amendment proposal that would limit the executive partial veto power and a bill to eliminate the school revenue limit increases that are the result of Gov. Tony Evers’ 400-year veto. 

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said it was the “wrong decision” for lawmakers to finish their work in February and “take quite a long vacation.” 

“There is a lot left on the table for us to address but we all know that an arbitrary deadline has been set for us to go home,” Neubauer said. “Thankfully, it does seem like the tide is turning in this body and one day things will be different and operate under a different framework that is focused on people rather than politics and power.” 

Neubauer mentioned the passage of the postpartum Medicaid extension bill and the breast cancer screening bills that are now on their way to Gov. Tony Evers. 

The session wrap-up will free Assembly lawmakers up to campaign for reelection, and the body could look much different next session as some longtime lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), are retiring. Under newly competitive maps, the balance of power in both the Assembly and Senate is up for grabs.

“We have a lot left to accomplish this session. There is still time for us to act on funding our public schools, protecting our rights and freedoms, lowering costs and helping Wisconsinites make ends meet,” Neubauer said. “This is the moment to act boldly and do the right thing for the people of Wisconsin.” 

Vos told WISN-12 on Friday that leaders and Gov. Tony Evers had not yet reached a deal on how to use the state’s projected $2.5 budget surplus. The leaders have been negotiating on ways to ease property taxes and provide funding to schools.

“We’re going to figure a way to get it done,” Vos said, adding that he wants the money to “go back to the people” while Evers wants additional investments. “The middle ground is a little of each.”

“We’ll probably have to come back in a special session or extraordinary session, something like that,” he said. 

Lawmakers passed proposals that were introduced in reaction to the veto as well as bills to ban phones in school, regulate app and social media companies and to provide state money towards “Trump accounts.” 

Fight over partial veto

The Assembly passed two proposals that took aim at the partial veto Evers used when he signed the 2023 state budget that extended an annual $325 per-pupil school revenue limit increase for 400 years. Evers, who recently defended the veto in his State of the State address, said he wanted to provide school districts with a consistent way to raise revenue in the absence of reliable state funding increases. 

The Assembly also approved in a 54-41 vote along party lines a third constitutional amendment to go before voters later this year. 

The amendments will go before Wisconsin voters in November. Two others, including one to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs from state and local governments and one to prohibit the state from ordering the closure of places of worship during a state of emergency, passed the state Legislature earlier this year. 

Constitutional amendment proposals have to pass the state Legislature in two consecutive legislative sessions before they go to voters. If approved, SJR 116 would prohibit partial vetoes from raising or creating any taxes or fees. 

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) introduced the amendment proposal  after Evers’ veto. 

“You never know for sure who’s going to be the next governor,” Nedweski said on the Assembly floor Thursday. “Choose wisely on this.” 

The Assembly also concurred in a bill that would outright eliminate the annual $325 per pupil revenue limit increases that are the result of the partial veto. The vote on SB 389 was 54-40 and it sends the bill to Evers, who is likely to veto it. 

Despite its likely rejection, Republican lawmakers still made the case for why Evers should sign the bill into law.

Rep. Karen Hurd (R-Withee) read a letter from superintendents on the professional advisory committee for the Cooperative Educational Service Agency 10, which serves parts of northwestern Wisconsin, urging Evers to reverse his veto. They argued in part that  $325 per pupil is not an increase that allows schools to keep pace with the rate of inflation, doesn’t fix chronic underfunding of special education funding and puts it all on property taxpayers.

The superintendents said that they thought the veto could impede reform of school funding in Wisconsin. 

The veto doesn’t stop lawmakers from being able to put more state funding into schools, but Republican lawmakers have refused to do so. During the state budget process, Republican lawmakers angered by the veto opted not to provide any increase in general school aid in the 2025-26 or 2026-27 fiscal years. School advocates said the decision would only further exacerbate the funding issues they face, especially since their decision on whether to use the additional $325 increase would rely only on property tax increases. 

“Every year we put together a budget, a budget that has to be sustainable. There may be a year that we could put more aid into schools than $325 per student. We have to look at that each year,” Hurd said. “We are people that are trying to fund the schools in every way that we can, but when it is set at $325 per year for the next 400 years, then that opportunity for us to work within the budget and increase it has been ripped away.”

Democrats said that before taking away authority from schools, lawmakers should consider improving the state’s system for funding schools. Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) said that the annual school revenue limit increase is the “only predictable source of revenue” for  Wisconsin public schools.

“We should not close public schools,” he said, alluding to Republican lawmakers who have proposed consolidating school districts as a way of helping with funding challenges. “We should fund them.”

Rep. Angelina Cruz (D-Racine) said the GOP bill does not answer the question of how to fund schools and provide relief to property taxpayers

“The answer is to reconnect school funding to inflation. The answer is to increase state aid so local property taxes are not the backstop. The answer is to modernize the formula to reflect demographic realities. The answer is to fulfill our constitutional obligation to fully fund public schools,” Cruz said. 

AB 460 would allow siblings of students in the state’s school voucher program to qualify for participation even if their family no longer meets the family income requirements. It passed on a voice vote. It now goes to the state Senate.

“I’m not going to do anything that further exacerbates the zeroing out of the state’s resources on public schools or expands privatization on the Wisconsin taxpayers dime, particularly Wisconsin property taxpayers dime,” Phelps said. “Unfortunately, this bill proposes removing income caps  on the students that Wisconsin property taxpayers would be funding to attend private schools.”

Cell phone ban, online regulations

AB 948 would require school districts to adopt policies that prohibit the use of cell phones for the entire school days, taking a step further than the recent law signed by Evers that bans phones during class. It passed via voice vote and will now go to the Senate.

Rep. Alex Joers (D-Waunakee) said he would support the bill but thought it was the “easy way out,” saying he wasn’t sure with advancing technologies in the future that to “blanketly ban things” would be an effective solution.

Rep. Alex Penterman (R-Hustisford), who has worked as a substitute teacher, said students in middle and high school can become a “social piranha” if they don’t have the latest smartphone. 

Rep. Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls) said the bill would encourage students to engage with each other and bring back “loud lunches” where “kids aren’t on the phones but instead negotiations are happening between peanut butter and jelly and grilled cheese and not Snapchat. We need to go back to kids making their after school plans while they’re eating their lunches instead of bullying each other online.”

Goeben said her bills would support the “God-given constitutional right of parents to protect and guide their children, not tech platforms.” 

The Assembly also passed a set of bills meant to put regulations on apps and social media companies that are intended to give parents more oversight over their children’s activity.

Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) said the bills were aimed at protecting children in “digital world that was not built with their safety in mind.”

“We’re living in an age of online predatory behavior, instant access and algorithm driven exposure. Children are encountering explicit material at younger and younger ages and many parents feel that they are fighting a losing battle.” 

“We cannot pretend that warning labels will solve every problem but we can insist on honesty and accountability from those who profit from this content.” 

AB 961 passed 61-34. It would would require digital distributors of media to display prominent “explicit content” warning labels on material that “predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of children,” “is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for children” and “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, scientific or educational value for children.” 

The bill calls for the warning label to be displayed on the front page of digital platforms, the label would need to appear for at least 10 seconds or until a user acknowledges the warning.

AB 962 passed 58-37. It would require app developers and app stores to verify the age of users and get parental consent before children are able to download or purchase apps or make in-store purchases. Accounts belonging to a minor would have to be affiliated with an account owned by a parent.

AB 963 passed 60-35. It would require social media platforms that bring in more than $1 billion in revenue per year to take several steps, including estimating the age of users and for minors,  setting their privacy to the most private settings, turning off addictive features and prohibiting profile-based, paid commercial advertising in their feeds. 

Trump accounts

The Assembly also approved bills to provide state funds to the “Trump accounts” program. 

The federal tax and spending bill signed into law by President Donald Trump last year included a measure to allow parents to create dedicated “Trump accounts” similar to IRA accounts, for their children. Parents of babies born between Jan. 1, 2025 through the end of 2028 and who are U.S. citizens with a valid Social Security number will be eligible to have $1,000 deposited in the account from the federal government. 

AB 996 would provide a state match for the accounts. AB 997 includes the $60 million in annual funding for the 2025-27 budget cycle for proposal. Both passed 62-35 with eight Democrats joining Republicans in favor.

“People are not saving at the right pace for retirement,” said the author of both bills, Rep. Elijah Behnke (R- Town of Chase). “The reason this is the best possible policy is because you’re investing in your kids’ future.” 

Joers said the money should be invested in other priorities that could help children and parents more and expressed concerns about the federal program not being up and running yet.

“I think that we need to do a lot better for our kids and our parents,” Joers said. “This bill takes money that we should be giving to our children and our parents right now and instead takes it and gives it to a federal program that has not even been set up yet. I know the president wandered around stage with Nicki Minaj, but this program has not started yet.” 

“Kids need this money now, not 18 years from now. They need it now in their schools they need this money. Let’s keep the promise that we made in our budget to fund special education reimbursement.”

“Immoral conduct” investigations

The Assembly also approved two additional bills that were introduced after an investigation by the CapTimes that found there were over 200 investigations into teacher licenses due to allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023. 

The bills seek to provide new rules on how “immoral conduct” investigations are conducted.

AB 1003, which passed on a voice vote, would prohibit the Department of Public Instruction from ending an investigation into a license holder accused of immoral conduct without a determination on whether there should be a license revocation or termination. The prohibition wouldn’t apply if a licensee permanently surrenders the licenses and waives their rights to a future appeal. 

AB 1004, which passed 87-8, prohibits public and private schools from entering agreements that would suppress information on the immoral conduct of an employee, would affect the report of immoral conduct by an employer or employees or require an education employer to expunge information about allegations of findings or immoral conduct. 

Other bills on the issue that have passed the Assembly or Senate include one to create a “grooming” crime in Wisconsin, one to ensure school districts have policies on appropriate communications and one to require DPI to maintain an online licensing portal that is searchable by the public at no cost. 

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Friday he plans to keep tariffs in place using different authorities after the Supreme Court ruled he exceeded his power under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. 

During the afternoon press conference in the White House briefing room, Trump repeatedly criticized the six justices who wrote “that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” 

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing and I’m ashamed of certain members of the Court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” he said. 

Trump’s disdain of Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor did not stop there. 

He said the justices’ opposition to his tariff policies meant they were a “disgrace to our nation” as well as “unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh wrote dissenting opinions. Justice Samuel Alito and Thomas joined Kavanaugh’s dissent.

Trump appointed Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during his first term.

But, Trump said, the ruling would not change the tariffs he has implemented under IEEPA since he planned to institute the same tax on goods coming into the country under different laws. 

“The good news is that there are methods, practices, statutes and authorities as recognized by the entire Court in this terrible decision, and also as recognized by Congress, which they refer to, that are even stronger than the IEEPA tariffs available to me as president of the United States,” he said. 

Trump said he would sign an order later in the day to “impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.”

Trump didn’t commit to returning the tens of billions of dollars the U.S. government has collected from IEEPA tariffs, saying the ruling didn’t address that issue. 

“They take months and months to write an opinion, and they don’t even discuss that point,” Trump said. “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”

Trump said he didn’t plan to ask Congress to pass any new laws or give the president broader tariff authority. 

“I don’t have to. I have the right to do tariffs. And I’ve always had the right to do tariffs. It has all been approved by Congress, so there’s no reason to do it,” he said. “All we’re doing is we’re going through a little bit more complicated process, not complicated very much, but a little more complicated than what we had. And we’ll be able to take in more tariffs.” 

Trump is set to address a joint session of Congress, which will likely be attended by many, if not all, of the Supreme Court justices, on Tuesday night. 

Trump said he “couldn’t care less” whether the justices attend the speech, which is held in the House chamber. He said they are “barely” still invited, even though the president, who leads the executive branch, doesn’t hold the authority to exclude guests from either chamber of Congress, which makes up the separate but equal legislative branch.  

Justices can, however, choose not to attend. 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to President Donald Trump’s trade agenda Friday, ruling the tariffs he issued under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act are illegal.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said Congress alone holds the power to tax in almost all circumstances. The Trump administration’s argument that trade deficits and illegal drug imports granted it emergency power to levy tariffs was not justified, the court said. Tariffs are taxes on imported goods.

The Trump administration had argued that a provision in the law, known as IEEPA, that said the executive branch could “regulate” imports empowered the president to levy tariffs.

“Based on two words separated by 16 others (in the law)—‘regulate’ and ‘importation’—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Roberts wrote. “Those words cannot bear such weight.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts’ opinion. 

Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh filed dissenting opinions. Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito joined Kavanaugh’s.

Kavanaugh’s dissent accepted the administration’s reading of the law and said it was not the justices’ role to decide a policy matter that has “generated vigorous” debate. 

“The sole legal question here is whether, under IEEPA, tariffs are a means to ‘regulate . . . importation,’” he wrote. “Statutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer is clearly yes: Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation.”

New tariffs

Trump blasted the ruling at an afternoon press conference. Asked if he regretted nominating Gorsuch and Barrett, he said the decision was “an embarrassment to their families.”

He said the judges were “being politically correct” and catering to special interests rather than fairly interpreting the law.

He also said he would impose global 10% tariffs under a provision of the Trade Act of 1974, which  allows the president to unilaterally apply tariffs for up to 150 days.

“Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged,” he said.

Tariffs were an important tool to balance the country’s trade and hold leverage over other countries, he said. 

‘Unchecked’ presidential authority

In the opinion of the court, Roberts wrote that Trump’s expansive use of the emergency tariff powers would upend the balance of powers between branches of government.

The administration’s position would empower the president “to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs,” simply by declaring an economic emergency, Roberts wrote. Further, that declaration would be unreviewable and could be overturned only by a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress.

That view “would replace the longstanding executive-legislative collaboration over trade policy with unchecked Presidential policymaking,” he wrote.

When Congress intends to convey that kind of power to the executive branch, it generally does so in uncertain terms, Roberts said.

“In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” he wrote. 

The government’s argument that IEEPA authorized that power, “falls short,” the opinion said. 

The chief justice added that it was telling that in the nearly 50 years since the IEEPA became law, no other president has read such broad powers into it.

What to do about the taxes that were collected?

The ruling opens a new debate about how to handle tariff revenue that the government has already collected since Trump first imposed the IEEPA tariffs a year ago.

Kavanaugh noted the likely confusion the issue would cause.

“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers,” he wrote. “But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument.”

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat and prominent economic liberal, said that revenue should be sent to small businesses that were harmed by the imposition of tariffs.

“Any refunds from the federal government should end up in the pockets of the millions of Americans and small businesses that were illegally cheated out of their hard-earned money by Donald Trump,” she wrote in a statement.

Main Street Alliance, a national trade group representing small businesses, called for the revenue collected under the tariffs to be returned to small businesses.

“If the authority was unlawful, the collections were unlawful,” Executive Director Richard Trent said in a statement. “Every penny taken from small businesses under this framework should be returned.”

Attention turns to Congress

With the court ruling that taxing power lies with Congress, efforts to codify the tariffs Trump had applied could become a priority for Republican lawmakers.

“No one can deny that the President’s use of tariffs has brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy and for securing strong, reciprocal America-first trade agreements with countries that had been taking advantage of American workers for decades,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, wrote on social media. “Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks.”

Adrian Smith, a Nebraska Republican who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee’s subpanel on trade, said Congress should work with the president to legislate tariffs.

“Nebraska’s farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers create world-leading products and deserve reliable access to global markets,” he said. “I am committed to working with the administration to deliver long-term certainty through comprehensive and enforceable trade agreements. The President has made clear his intention to use every available tool to secure strong deals, but only Congress can ensure that these agreements provide lasting stability beyond any single administration.”

Ohio Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno, though, said in a social media post that the ruling would severely hamper efforts to rebalance trade, and called for Congress to codify the tariffs.

“SCOTUS’s outrageous ruling handcuffs our fight against unfair trade that has devastated American workers for decades,” he wrote. “These tariffs protected jobs, revived manufacturing, and forced cheaters like China to pay up. Now globalists win, factories (sic) investments may reverse, and American workers lose again. This betrayal must be reversed and Republicans must get to work immediately on a reconciliation bill to codify the tariffs that had made our country the hottest country on earth!”

Democratic lawmakers praised the court’s decision, while blasting the tariffs as a matter of policy.

“This is a win for the wallets of every American consumer,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “Trump’s chaotic and illegal tariff tax made life more expensive and our economy more unstable. Families paid more. Small businesses and farmers got squeezed. Markets swung wildly. We’ve said from day one: a president cannot ignore Congress and unilaterally slap tariffs on Americans. That overreach failed.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, called the decision “a win for farmers, small businesses, and hardworking, middle-class families across the country,” he said in a statement. 

“Trump’s illegal and chaotic tariffs have harmed American consumers and businesses, leaving them to foot the bill for rising prices due to Trumpflation,” the Oregon Democrat added. “While Trump continues his ‘families lose, billionaires win’ agenda, we’re using every tool at our disposal to fight back against his reckless policies and build an economy where families thrive, and billionaires pay their fair share.”

Arguments were heard in November

The justices heard arguments in early November in what was the first major case of the second Trump term to move beyond the court’s emergency docket and be heard on the merits of the case.

Small businesses and Democratic state attorneys general led the legal challenges against Trump’s tariffs in the two separate cases, consolidated before the Supreme Court. They alleged Trump usurped taxing power, which belongs to Congress as outlined in Article I of the Constitution.

Victor Schwartz, founder and president of the family-owned, New York-based wine and spirits importer VOS Selections led the small business plaintiffs, which included a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

State attorneys general who sued included those from Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon.

Two Illinois-based toy makers that primarily manufacture products in Asia filed a separate challenge.

For nearly three hours on Nov. 5, the justices dissected the language of IEEPA, a 1970s-era sanctions law that Trump invoked during the first year of his term in a series of emergency declarations and proclamations triggering import taxes on goods from nearly every country.

The high-profile case drew Cabinet officials to the court, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who sat shoulder-to-shoulder with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. 

Members of Congress also attended. Among the crowded rows were U.S. House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ed Markey of Massachusetts.

‘Liberation day’

Trump began imposing tariffs under IEEPA via executive order in February and March on products from China, Canada and Mexico, declaring the countries responsible for illegal fentanyl smuggled into the United States.

The president escalated the emergency tariffs April 2, which he dubbed “liberation day,” when he declared trade imbalances a national emergency. In addition to a new baseline 10% global tariff, Trump announced hefty additional duties on products from countries that export more goods to the U.S. than they import from U.S. suppliers.

The White House calculations baffled economists, as the administration proposed steep duties on close trading partners — including 20% on products from the European Union, 25% on South Korea, 32% on Taiwan and 46% on Vietnam. 

Inexplicably he also announced a 50% tariffs on goods from the landlocked, 11,000-square-mile African nation of Lesotho, and 10% on the Heard and McDonald Islands, only inhabited by penguins and seals.

Trump’s announcement crashed markets, wiping trillions of dollars away in just a matter of days. He relented and delayed most of the tariffs, but escalated a trade war with China — shooting up the levy to 125%, and eventually to 145%.

The administration’s trade war with China cooled a bit in May, but left the rate on some products at an effective 55%.

Trump maintains his tariffs have forced the hand of other governments to invest in the U.S. in exchange for lower tariffs. For example, Trump officials claimed victory in a framework deal with Japan that lowered duties on Japanese products to 15%, from 25%, with a promise from Japan to invest $550 billion in the U.S.

As recently as late August, Trump imposed an extra 25% tariff on goods imported from India, bringing the total tariffs on Indian products to 50%, because of the country’s usage of Russian oil. 

In early August, Trump slapped a 40% tax on all Brazilian goods after he disagreed with the country’s prosecution of its former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup to remain in power in 2022.

Before Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) announced his retirement Thursday, it was obvious something had changed. The longest serving speaker in Wisconsin history, known for keeping Assembly Republicans on a tight leash, slipped out of a caucus meeting late Wednesday night. Capitol reporter Baylor Spears tracked him down at a fundraiser at the Madison Club, where, she reported, Vos told her his caucus was meeting without him. Later that evening, Assembly Republicans announced that Vos had suddenly dropped his yearslong opposition to letting Wisconsin expand postpartum Medicaid coverage for new mothers for one year. Vos’ last-minute change of heart allowed eight Republicans facing competitive reelection races to hold a late-night press conference proclaiming the news that they planned to pass postpartum coverage, along with another measure extending life-saving breast-cancer screenings that Vos was suddenly permitting to come up for a vote. Vos himself didn’t bother to attend. 

With both Vos and Gov. Tony Evers retiring, the two most powerful politicians in the state — and the often dysfunctional dynamic between them — are going away. It’s the end of an era characterized by toxic partisanship, although probably not the last we’ll see of divided government in our 50/50 state. 

Still, as Vos relaxes his grip, Wisconsin Republicans are starting to wrap their heads around the new reality that they no longer hold complete control over what was once, effectively, a one-party state. 

New, fairer voting maps have already eroded gerrymandered GOP supermajorities in the Legislature that previously endured even when Democrats won every statewide race. In the upcoming November elections, the new maps will, for the first time, take full effect.

The creation of more competitive districts has not immediately ushered in an atmosphere of productive bipartisanship in the Capitol. But it did cause enough of a thaw that Wisconsin could finally join the other 48 states that have already expanded postpartum Medicaid. Republicans running in newly competitive districts can campaign on this bit of belated progress. Two cheers for Wisconsin! We’re 49th!

At the Vos-less press conference Wednesday night, Republicans gave emotional testimony about “the women who need this protection.” They thanked the speaker for finally listening to their pleas. Then, instead of reaching across the aisle, they delivered a scorching rebuke to Democrats who had been pushing for months for a vote on both of the women’s health bills they were celebrating. When the bills were not scheduled, Democrats vowed to bring them up as amendments to other bills, holding up action on the floor and threatening to put their GOP colleagues in the embarrassing position of having to vote down their efforts.

“I’m very angry at what happened today — very angry,” Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) said. “I talked to my Democratic colleagues and told them that I was close, that it was going to get done, but then they throw this crap at us today. It almost blew it up.”

By speaking up, Democrats nearly ruined Republicans’ efforts to gain support within their own caucus, according to Snyder. That analysis caused Democratic Minority Leader Greta Neubauer to roll her eyes. “It seems that the bills are going to the floor after years of Rep. Pat Snyder telling us that these bills were going to be passed and them not being passed, so it does seem like our actions made a difference today,” Neubauer said. 

Partisan habits die hard. For much of the most recent legislative session, Republicans formed a Sorehead Caucus whose sole aims were rehashing grievances about their loss of power and trying in vain to recreate the dominance they enjoyed when they controlled every branch of government. 

Back in 2018, when Evers won the first time, breaking the GOP stranglehold by beating former Republican Gov. Scott Walker, Republicans held a lame duck session to claw back the incoming governor’s powers. Eight years later, as Evers is about to leave office at the end of his second term, they’re still at it. Motivated by spite over Evers’ line-item veto extending their modest, two-year increase in school revenue limits for the next 400 years, they have insisted on starving school districts of state funds, punishing not only Wisconsin schoolchildren but also the property taxpayers who, in the absence of state funding, are forced to pick up the tab. 

In a similarly spiteful vein, Republicans just killed off the popular, bipartisan Knowles Nelson stewardship program, setting up the 36-year-old land conservation effort to die this summer. Over and over in hearings on whether to renew the program or drastically cut it back, Republicans cited a state Supreme Court decision that held they cannot anonymously veto individual conservation projects. GOP legislators said the decision — written by the most conservative justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court — left them no option but to gut the program just to show who’s boss. 

As Henry Redman reports, a handful of conservation-minded Republicans could have joined forces with Democrats to save the program, but Republican bill authors insisted on negotiating only within their own caucus, ignoring Democratic efforts to make a deal and instead trying to please the program’s far-right enemies by making deeper and deeper cuts before finally giving up and letting the program lapse.

This style of governing — a hangover from the Walker era — might satisfy certain politicians’ hunger for power, but it’s ill-suited to getting anything productive done for the people who live in the state.

Let’s hope Vos’ departure marks the end of the petty partisanship that has blocked progress in Wisconsin for far too long.

Republicans in the Legislature have been working for years to pass legislation that would allow sandhill cranes to be hunted in Wisconsin. GOP lawmakers have introduced several bills on the issue. 

A 2024 legislative study committee assessed ways in which lawmakers could help manage crop damage caused by the birds as well as how to manage a crane hunt. But after introducing a package, they amended it down to just a crane hunt measure. 

GOP lawmakers have spent a few weeks working to pass legislation that would add some regulations on the use of high powered wake boats on the state’s water bodies. The boats have drawn ire from lakeshore residents across the state because of the large waves they create, which can damage shorelines. People also often bring the boats to several different boats, which raises the risk of spreading invasive species in the boat’s ballast. 

Both bills have drawn criticism from members of the public. Environmental and wildlife advocates have questioned the crane bill’s lack of crop damage provisions and complained that Republicans are pushing through a hunt without fully understanding current science. 

The wake boat bill has drawn complaints that it is too friendly to the wealthy wake boat owners and weakens local authority to establish more stringent wake boating rules. 

On Thursday, when the Republican-authored wake boat bill introduced just 10 days earlier came up for a vote on the Assembly floor, GOP members  offered an amendment that jammed in the Republican-authored crane hunt proposal. 

Democrats objected to the last minute combination, with Reps. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland) and Vincent Miresse (D-Stevents Point) calling it “bad governance.” 

“I’m quickly trying to read the amendment to see which of the bills this is, is it the one from the study committee that a bipartisan committee put together, or is it the one that was totally butchered in the Senate, and I don’t have time to read through it, because this is just bad governance,” Stroud said. “I’m going to be a no because these are two different bills completely. But I just want to point out, as I probably just said, that this is not what the people from Wisconsin expect us to be doing when we’re voting on things that deeply affect them.” 

Miresse said the passage of the wake boat bill prioritizes the input of wealthy boat owners and was rushed at the expense of “the vast majority of stakeholders” who were “united against this bill.”

Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) said it only makes sense to combine the bills because cranes live in marshy areas. 

“I know that it’s common on that side of the aisle to get confused when we’re trying to do good government here, but let me walk them through the germaneness of how these are two very relevant and important things to have together,” he said. “For those who aren’t aware, Sandhill Cranes like to nest near water lines. They like to be in marshy areas. You know, where we often find marshy areas around? Lake shores. You know what’s a great way to protect our lake shores, keeping those high speed, high wake boats away from those shorelines.”

The vote on the combined bill caused further controversy when Republicans moved ahead with a voice vote while Democrats tried to call for a roll call vote. The spat froze the work of the Assembly while every Democrat lined up to record the vote against the combined legislation, which has now been sent to the Senate. 

Hours later, when the standalone Republican bill to establish a sandhill crane hunt came up as originally scheduled, Miresse addressed the body about wake boats. 

“I’m here to talk about wake boats today,” he said to laughter from the Democratic side of the floor.

Republicans said that Wisconsin has a “sandhill crane problem,” noting that the resurgence of the crane population is a conservation success story but now there are too many. 

Rep. Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc) said the bill supports the state’s farmers and hunters. 

“This bill is about supporting hunters, farmers and getting serious about sandhill crane management here in our state,” Tittl said. “We can’t stand by and let other people dictate our state’s conservation policy on sandhill cranes just because it’s a pretty bird. I agree it is a beautiful bird, and so is a wood duck. I think deer is majestic. Well, so I challenge you now if you support science and facts, hunters, farmers and most importantly, our Wisconsin State Constitution, the vote is yes.”

But Rep. Karen DeSanto (D-Baraboo), whose district includes the International Crane Foundation, questioned how hunting cranes in the fall would prevent farm fields from being damaged in the spring. 

“We need a more comprehensive approach that includes more than just a hunt, because a limited fall hunt would have little impact on spring crop damage,” DeSanto said.

Anti-rights of nature 

Republicans also passed a bill 54-41 that would prohibit local governments from passing ordinances protecting the rights of nature. The bill was introduced after Green Bay and Milwaukee have passed or discussed establishing largely symbolic ordinances protecting the rights of bodies of water to be kept clean. 

The concept stems from provisions in the constitutions of some South American countries and Native American tribes such as Wisconsin’s Ho-Chunk Nation. In American law, environmental activists have been pushing for the legal rights of nature for decades, Rep. Andrew Hysell (D-Sun Prairie) noted. 

“People who have a meaningful relation to the body of water, whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist or a logger, must be able to speak for the values which the river represents and which are threatened with destruction,” Hysell said.

A separate bill, authored by Miresse and introduced last year without any movement, would recognize the natural rights of Devil’s Lake State Park. 

Republicans say such ordinances are communist and anti-business while Democrats point to legal interpretations that recognize corporations as people as setting a precedent. 

“I’d like to thank the authors for bringing this bill. I think it’s worthy of discussion,” Miresse said. “To ensure a livable future, we must restore balance with our natural world, and that means changing how our laws treat nature. Instead of viewing rivers, forests, ecosystems as materials for consumption and dumping grounds, we must recognize their inherent rights to exist, thrive, regenerate and be restored.”

Rep. Joy Goebben (R-Hobart), the bill’s co-author, said it would protect property rights. But Rep. Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls) complained that Democrats want to protect nature but not fetuses.

“I find it rich that the other side of the aisle talks about inherent rights of water, trees and air. Yet … they produced an amendment to kill children after birth in the womb. So while they talk about drinking water being a luxury, human life should be a luxury that should be valued in this place, and instead, they make a mockery of it.”

If your local court is struggling with a backlog of cases then help is on the way — except for people living in Milwaukee County. Although initially included in a Republican effort to fund more legal staff statewide, Milwaukee was largely removed from a bill authorizing additional circuit court and criminal justice system positions, in a move both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have said was purely political. 

On Thursday, lawmakers voted to pass the Assembly version of that bill (AB 514) during an Assembly floor session. Under its original form — authored by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Gillett) and Rep. David Steffens (R-Howard) — the bill would have provided Milwaukee County with funding for four assistant district attorney positions, four assistant state public defender positions, and six support staff positions for the Public Defender’s Office by 2028. 

That aid is sorely needed in Milwaukee, where courts are burdened by thousands of unresolved cases, Wisconsin Watch reported. The backlog creates situations where cases are dismissed, people are held in custody for excessive periods waiting for trial, and attorneys on both sides of cases are overwhelmed. “Justice delayed, justice denied,” is how Kent Lovern, Milwaukee County’s District Attorney, described the backlog’s consequences. Yet in late January, the bill was amended to cut assistance for Milwaukee except for additional assistant prosecutor positions. 

When questioned about the cuts during an early February Senate hearing, Steffens said “there were certain things that had to be done” in order to get unanimous support for the bill among his fellow Republicans. Other counties, including Waukesha, Green Bay, Menomonee, Kenosha, Richland, Sauk, Ozaukee, Washington, Jefferson, Eau Claire, and numerous others didn’t see cuts in the number of additional public defenders the bill supports. 

Since the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, courts across the state have battled backlogs and staffing shortages. In August 2025, Wisconsin Watch reported, there was a backlog of 12,586 felony cases across the entire Wisconsin court system. Currently, according to Wisconsin Watch, there are over 10,000 unresolved felony cases in Milwaukee County’s court system.

Answering questions from Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee), Steffens explained that the original bill was designed based on clear and “clinical” needs assessments. “However,” said Steffens, “there does become a period where politics sometimes gets involved. And the substitute that was passed, again unanimously in the Assembly, did reflect some of those political pressures.” Instead of ensuring Milwaukee’s justice system gets the resources it needs now, Steffens said there would be “a continued opportunity through the next budget” to accomplish that.

“People have different positions on things all the time, and we have to respond to that as bill authors,” said Steffens. “I will say this, though, with every piece of legislation we introduce we have an opportunity to do nothing, something, or everything. This is quite something. This will be the largest increase in well over 15 years for these positions. The people who have been working on this look at this as a historic opportunity. If you are looking for perfection in this bill, you will not find it.”

Steffens declined to say which Republican lawmakers did not want to support Milwaukee County’s court system.

In a statement to Wisconsin Examiner, State Public Defender Jennifer Bias stressed the need for more defense attorneys in the court system. “Wisconsin has a dire need for more public defender staff statewide,” Bias said in an emailed statement. “Even in its amended form, this bill is a big step in the right direction and has the full support of our agency.”

On the Assembly floor Thursday evening, Steffens said that over his nearly 12 years in the legislature, he has worked with the Republican majority (which he noted has maintained “nearly uninterrupted control” for 30 years) to pass new crime laws or measures to enhance existing crime laws hundreds of times. Steffens said he was unaware of how this would shape the court system, and that the thousands of case backlogs is a sign that he and other lawmakers have failed the court system. He recounted hearing about a man in the Brown County Jail, who claimed he was innocent, and spent over a year waiting his case to conclude. As a result, he lost his job, his wife, and his job.

“That’s not justice,” said Steffens. “The Constitution guarantees that every person shall be provided with a speedy trial. We’ve been denying that to people throughout this state. In Brown County alone, we have a backlog of 8,000 cases.” Steffens added, “I’m trying to make up for my errors, my failure as a legislator, and I hope you’ll join me.”

Recalling a colleague who said that the bill “is the cost of being a law and order state,” he declared, “it’s time to pay that bill, and we’re going to do it by hiring these people. So I hope you’ll all join me in supporting this bipartisan piece of legislation and making a substantial step forward in restoring some measure of justice for all the people in Wisconsin.”

After Steffens spoke a voice vote was called on the bill. Some lawmakers very audibly yelled “no!” but were unable to stop the bill from passing and being messaged to the Senate. 

Safety and support for everyone, except if you live in Milwaukee

“We see time and time again that Milwaukee County is blamed for its criminal activity,” Johnson said in frustration during an interview earlier this week. “We’re blamed for the rise in crime in other suburban areas, and other surrounding areas in Milwaukee, but this is a clear indication of why that continues to happen. Because when we have opportunities such as this…And I’m upset that other counties are getting these resources. If they need them, they deserve them. Milwaukee deserves those same measures of safety and security, too.” A spokesperson for Steffens said that he was unavailable for comment, and Wimberger’s office didn’t respond to Wisconsin Examiner’s request. 

Johnson said that the motivation to cut Milwaukee out of the court support bill stemmed from a conflict involving the district attorney’s office, public defender’s office and a court watch group called Enough Is Enough. The group is dedicated to Erin Mogensen, a 32-year-old Shorewood woman who was pregnant when a driver crashed into and killed her in 2023. Enough Is Enough monitors similar cases in the court system, and has issued reports suggesting that judges delivered sentences in reckless driving and fleeing cases that were more lenient than what prosecutors recommended. 

Last fall, two regional managers of the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office issued a letter to judges in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court’s criminal division accusing Enough Is Enough of being little more than “an extension of the DA’s office,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. The defenders obtained 258 emails from a public records request, showing “extensive meetings” between members of Enough Is Enough and the Milwaukee County DA’s office. Current and former assistant district attorneys were involved in the meetings, and even worked to review and draft letters from Enough Is Enough addressed to the judiciary. The public defenders warned the judges to consider this when evaluating impact statements or the presence of Enough Is Enough. 

Both the group and the DA’s office pushed back against the public defenders’ accusations, the Journal Sentinel reported. Lovern acknowledged that he was approached by the group’s members in 2024, when he announced his bid for district attorney after John Chisholm retired. By the time Lovern became DA, Enough Is Enough had obtained 501(c)3 status. Lovern said he offered the group access where appropriate and assistance from his office. 

Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) jumped to the group’s defense, accusing the public defender’s office of trying to intimidate and discredit what Donovan called a “volunteer” and “grassroots” organization. Donovan had backed Enough Is Enough since its inception, has focused on the issue of  reckless driving in recent years, according to the Journal Sentinel. Donovan didn’t respond to a request for comment for this story. 

“When we talk about how things in this building can be political,” Johnson told the Wisconsin Examiner, speaking of the state Capitol, “this is a perfect example of a petty argument between two factions of the court system can be interjected by somebody in the state Legislature that just takes this argument to a whole new [level].” 

The decision to strip the public defender positions from Milwaukee will only worsen the court backlog, Johnson said. “So you’re going to make things more complicated simply because you’re being petty,” she told the Examiner. “And what really pisses me off is the fact that we know in this building that if the rest of the state is taken care of with their needs, and the only entity that has a need is Milwaukee County, it will not get met. Because we’ve seen them slight Milwaukee County before…You don’t get to trump public safety for hundreds of thousands of people simply because you’re being petty, and petty politics is playing into this state Legislature, and their responsibility to an entire county.”

During its final planned day of legislative business this year, the Wisconsin Assembly passed a bill to ensure health care coverage of screenings for women at high risk of breast cancer and a bill to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage to a year.

Republican lawmakers announced Wednesday evening that they would vote on the bills, breaking gridlock on the issues which for years was held up by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester). Vos, who announced his retirement at the beginning of the floor session Thursday, reversed his position and voted in favor of both bills.  

Each bill passed the Senate in nearly unanimous votes last year, and the Assembly concurring votes will send the bills to Gov. Tony Evers for a signature. 

Lawmakers honor Gail Zeemer as they pass breast cancer screening bill

SB 264 requires health insurance policies to provide coverage for diagnostic breast examinations and for supplemental breast screening examinations for women with dense breast tissue. The bill would require coverage to include no patient cost-sharing. 

The family of Gail Zeemer, a Neenah woman who spent time advocating for the legislation before her death from breast cancer in 2024, sat in the Assembly gallery. Zeemer, who had dense breast tissue, was diagnosed with cancer at a late stage after not receiving additional screening. She battled cancer for eight years and passed away in June 2024 at the age of 56.

Lawmakers applauded her family after voting to concur in the bill, named “Gail’s Law.” It passed in a unanimous 96-0 vote.  

Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa) spoke about listening to testimony from Zeemer during a hearing on the bill prior to her death in the Assembly Health committee.

“She was full of strength and determination,” Vining said. “This year, as we’ve heard testimony, her absence was felt in the room. Today is the day that she fought for, and I am so sorry that Gail is not here with us today. Gail’s law will save lives. It will prevent preventable deaths.”

“You didn’t give up. You didn’t take no for an answer,” Vining said of Zeemer’s family and other advocates for the bills.

Several lawmakers, including Rep. Nate Gustafson (R-Omro) and Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie), teared up as they spoke of their support for the legislation.

“It’s about families,” Nedweski said of the bill. “Too many husbands have lost their wives to breast cancer, too many parents have had to say goodbye to a daughter too soon, and too many children have seen their mother’s hair fall out and have had to cry themselves to sleep while their mothers went through chemo, surgery and radiation, sometimes only to be told the cancer is back, and there are no other options.” 

Nedweski said the bill takes an important step to “help children keep their moms.” 

“Mammography simply does not work for everyone,” she added. 

Nedweski said the bill is a “wise investment,” noting that it is why Texas and Florida have adopted similar policies. “Gail’s law is not only life-saving, it is cost-saving. Detecting cancer early not only drastically increases survival rates, it means that treatment costs will be lower for patients and for families.” 

Women with dense breast tissue have a higher risk of breast cancer and it can make it harder for radiologists to see cancer on mammograms, according to the American Cancer Society. 

Insurance policies in Wisconsin are already required to provide coverage for two mammograms for women between the ages of 45 and 49 and annual screenings for women over the age of 50, but insurance companies are not required to cover additional screenings for women with dense breast tissue or at higher risk. 

Bipartisan support for the bill did not prevent partisan bickering during debate. Republican lawmakers complained in a press conference announcing the bill scheduling and again on the floor about Democratic lawmakers’ prior actions urging a vote.

Rep. Barbara Dittrich (R-Oconomowoc) said that the eight Republican Assembly lawmakers were the “true heroes who fought for where we are today.” 

“I celebrate them, rather than the tantrum throwing we saw leading up to this,” she said.

Others highlighted the bipartisan nature of the bills. 

Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Appleton) thanked Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton), a key supporter of the legislation, and Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah), who called for lawmakers to go to partisan caucus to discuss the measure on Wednesday. GOP lawmakers credit discussion during the caucus for the recent breakthrough. 

“I know that this body is contentious often. I know that some of us don’t even like each other, but when we can come together and do something good for women’s health and the people of Wisconsin,” Snodgrass said, “it’s truly a victory.” 

Some lawmakers said that Wisconsin still needs to do more to ensure that people can access health care in the state.

Margaret Arney (D-Wauwatosa) called the passage of the bill a “victory” but a “small step on a long road.” 

“We need to seriously stare in the face of what it takes for people to afford health care,” Arney said. “All the people in Wisconsin deserve to have health security and I invite us to take that step together.” 

Postpartum Medicaid extension

Wisconsin is poised to become the 49th state to accept a federal expansion of Medicaid coverage for women for one year after they give birth after the state Assembly approved SB 23. 

The bill passed 95-1. Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) is the only lawmaker who voted against the bill. 

Evers, who most recently called on lawmakers to pass the bill and send it to him at his State of the State address on Tuesday evening, is likely to sign it.

Pregnant women can receive Medicaid coverage in Wisconsin if they have an annual income of up to 306% of the federal poverty level, however, currently they risk losing that coverage 60 days after giving birth. 

Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston), the lead Assembly author on the bill, said he picked up the “mantle” on the issue because of what he heard while knocking doors during the campaign cycle. A previous author on the bill was former Republican Rep. Donna Rozar, who lost her reelection bid in 2024. 

Snyder also doubled down on criticizing Democratic lawmakers for their efforts to force a vote on the issue. “I had a night’s sleep and I realized that a lot of my Democrat colleagues who I’m friends with are following orders,” he said. 

“Thank goodness we beat Arkansas,” Snyder said, referring to the only other state in the U.S. that has not extended postpartum Medicaid coverage for a year. “Strong families will mean strong Wisconsin. That’s what I put my faith in, not trying to score political points.” 

Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) struck a more cordial tone. 

“I want to thank everyone here who changed their mind,” Andraca said. “That’s not easy.”