A sign explaining delays in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during the government shutdown is displayed at a Sprouts grocery store in Bountiful, Utah, on Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2025. (McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)

The Trump administration will release full benefits for most participants in the nation’s major federal nutrition program within 24 hours of the reopening of the federal government, a U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesperson said Wednesday. 

Many of the roughly 42 million Americans who rely on USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, to help afford groceries have faced uncertainty for weeks about their November benefits, which President Donald Trump and other top administration officials said could not be paid while the government was shut down. 

A USDA spokesperson answered an afternoon email from States Newsroom inquiring about when benefits would restart with a single sentence:

“Upon the government reopening, within 24 hours for most States,” the spokesperson wrote. 

Politico first reported the department’s 24-hour timeline.

While the federal government funds SNAP benefits, states are responsible for their administration, meaning an array of different processes across the country. 

The U.S. House was set to vote Wednesday evening to clear a bill to reopen the government after a record 43-day shutdown, after the Senate acted earlier this week. Trump is expected to sign it into law as early as Wednesday night. 

The enactment of the bill — and the subsequent renewal of federal payments — would resolve a dizzying weekslong saga over SNAP that placed the roughly 1 in 8 Americans who use the program in the middle of a political and legal battle playing out across every level of the federal judiciary. 

Since the shutdown began Oct. 1, the USDA has reversed its own position, the U.S. Supreme Court paused lower court orders and Trump himself expressed contradicting views.

In the most recent chapter, USDA said it would authorize states to pay 65% of benefits for November, and the Supreme Court paused until Thursday night lower court orders compelling full payments. 

The department had previously told a Rhode Island federal court it could take weeks or even months for beneficiaries to receive the partial allotments and the administration continued to fight rulings to immediately release full funding, even as the shutdown crept toward its conclusion.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

The U.S. Supreme Court has extended through Thursday a pause on lower courts’ orders that the Trump administration authorize a full month of benefits for a food assistance program that 1 in 8 Americans use to buy groceries.

A brief, unsigned order published Tuesday evening also said the full court would decide on the administration’s request to block court orders that the U.S. Department of Agriculture release full November benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. 

The case was presented to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said she would have dismissed the case and denied the request for an administrative stay. Jackson was appointed to the high court by President Joe Biden.

The order adds another wrinkle to a case that was already the object of a weekslong tug-of-war over how the program should operate during the government shutdown.

The shutdown could end before the stay expires. The U.S. Senate passed a bill Monday to reopen the government, and the House is expected to pass it Wednesday. President Donald Trump has said he supports the measure and will likely sign it before the end of the day Thursday.

Trump and administration officials have maintained they were not authorized to release November SNAP benefits during the shutdown.

A Rhode Island federal judge ordered the USDA on Thursday to release full benefits for November. The department sent states a memo authorizing those payments Friday morning, then appealed to the Supreme Court on Friday evening to have the district court’s order overturned.

At the same time, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order.

In the face of often contradicting administrative guidance and court orders, some states began processing full benefits for November, while others have yet to release them.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied a challenge to a landmark ruling protecting same-sex marriage equality. The rainbow flag of the gay pride movement and the flag of the United States | Getty Images

The United States Supreme Court has declined to revisit the 2015 landmark ruling that gave same-sex couples marriage equality, a failure for former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis.

Davis made national headlines in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to several same-sex couples based on her religious beliefs. With the help of conservative legal firm Liberty Counsel, Davis has tried to avoid paying $100,000 as ordered by a federal jury to one of the couples she refused, David Ermold and David Moore. She ultimately tried to use that appeal to challenge Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that required states to license same-sex marriages.

The nation’s highest court on Monday said it will not hear the challenge.

Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel’s founder and chairman who represents Davis, said he “will continue to work to overturn Obergefell.”

“Davis was jailed, hauled before a jury, and now faces crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported hurt feelings,” Staver said. “By denying this petition, the High Court has let stand a decision to strip a government defendant of their immunity and any personal First Amendment defense for their religious expression.”

Kevin Jennings, the CEO of Lambda Legal, a pro-LGBTQ+ advocacy law firm, called the case “frivolous” in celebrating its defeat.

“This is a victory not only for the LGBTQ+ community, but for everyone who believes in our Constitution and the rule of law. The court’s decision reaffirms a simple fact: equal protection of the law applies to all, not just some,” Jennings said in a statement. “This frivolous case now belongs in the trash bin of history.”

Jenny Pizer, Lambda Legal’s senior director of strategic initiatives said the decision to not hear the case by the Supreme Court “rightly leaves marriage equality crystal clear and undisturbed.”

Pizer said LGBTQ+ people and their families “still need vigilance and protection,” though.

“We secured the freedom to marry for same-sex couples over a decade ago in our landmark 2015 Supreme Court victory, Obergefell v. Hodges, thanks to the powerful stories of thousands of couples and their families throughout the country, including in our many court cases,” Pizer said. “The fundamental rights of liberty and equal protection that the court affirmed back then remain essential for all American families today.”

Kentucky Lantern is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kentucky Lantern maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jamie Lucke for questions: info@kentuckylantern.com.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up a challenge to a mail-in voting law in Mississippi. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday took up a Republican-backed challenge to counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day.

Depending how the justices rule, the case could be consequential for Washington and other states that vote by mail.

It stems from a lawsuit against a Mississippi state law allowing mail-in ballots received within five business days after Election Day to still be counted. Roughly 30 states have similar laws, with varying grace periods. 

The decision could also have ramifications for next year’s high-stakes midterms, which will decide whether Republicans maintain control of both the U.S. House and Senate. The court will likely hear arguments and rule by mid-2026.

Washington is one of a handful of states that conduct elections by mail and ballot drop boxes. The state accepts mail-in ballots up until the day before certification, which is 21 days after the election, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. 

Ballots for this month’s elections in Washington are still being counted, and the results of some close races have flipped and narrowed during the past week.

A federal judge in Mississippi upheld the state’s law, ruling the state’s statute isn’t preempted by federal law, which says Election Day is the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. 

But a federal appeals panel sided with the law’s challengers, the Republican National Committee and the state’s Republican and Libertarian parties. The appeals judges cited the U.S. Constitution’s clause that gives states the power to regulate elections, but also noted that clause says “Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” 

President Donald Trump, in his first term, appointed the three judges who issued that decision.

The legal question now is whether “election day” is when voters cast their ballots, or also when they must be received. The appeals court decided that ballots aren’t cast until election officials get them.

While the ruling doesn’t apply in Washington, if the Supreme Court upheld it, the ballot-counting system here would also be thrown into question.

Mississippi officials appealed to the Supreme Court to protect their five-day grace period. The state’s attorney general, a Republican, wrote in a brief to the high court that the appeals decision “would require scrapping election laws in most States.”

“The stakes are high: ballots cast by — but received after — election day can swing close races and change the course of the country,” Attorney General Lynn Fitch wrote.

The law’s opponents say these measures “deprive the electorate of a clear nationwide deadline that ‘puts all voters on the same footing.’”

In the 2024 general election, Washington election officials received nearly 120,000 valid ballots after Election Day that were postmarked on time. 

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, along with colleagues in other states, filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to side with Mississippi. They note the appeals court decision “jeopardizes the ability of military service members and their families stationed abroad to have their timely cast ballots counted.”

Asked for comment on the case Monday, Brown’s office referred to the earlier brief.

A spokesperson for Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, also a Democrat, said in a statement that Hobbs’ office supports the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case.

“We view this as an important opportunity for the Court to provide clarity on the authority of states to accept ballots received after Election Day, provided they are mailed by Election Day and meet all other requirements established in state law,” Charlie Boisner added.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked mail-in voting. 

In a March executive order, for example, he urged U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to stop states from counting absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day in federal elections. 

Brown and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield sued the Trump administration over the order. That case is pending in federal court in Seattle.

Washington state’s Republican Party also wants to see a return to in-person voting, with same-day vote counts.

The Supreme Court is already grappling with other litigation focused on mail-in ballots. 

Last month, they heard arguments in the case of an Illinois congressman who sued over a law in his state counting ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day. That case deals with the more procedural issue of the standard plaintiffs must meet to be allowed to sue over an election law.

This article was updated with comment from the Washington secretary of state’s office.

The Saturday Morning Market, in St. Petersburg, Florida, on April 14, 2012. (Photo by Lance Cheung/USDA)

Following a late Friday emergency ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump administration has instructed states that authorized full November nutrition assistance benefits to return a portion, another unprecedented reversal for a program that helps 42 million people afford groceries.

A Saturday memo from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service said states should fund 65% of benefits for users of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, often called food stamps. 

Those that had authorized full payments in line with earlier administration guidance should “immediately undo” that action, according to the memo.

“To the extent States sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025, this was unauthorized,” the memo said. “Accordingly, States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025. Please advise the appropriate FNS Regional Office representative of steps taken to correct any actions taken that do not comply with this memorandum.”

President Donald Trump and top administration officials have said they cannot pay full SNAP benefits during the government shutdown that began Oct. 1 and instead, under court orders, are using a contingency fund to make partial payments.

Shutdown chaos surrounds SNAP

Saturday’s guidance from Patrick A. Penn, the department’s deputy under secretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, marked the latest turnaround in a chaotic few days for the agency, states that administer SNAP and the millions of Americans who depend on it to afford food.

Penn wrote that, in light of the Supreme Court’s order pausing lower court rulings that USDA must pay full November benefits, the administration was returning to its position that SNAP benefits should be funded at 65%. 

States — including Wisconsin and Kansas — that issued full benefits did so under a Friday memo, also signed by Penn, that said states should authorize full payments for SNAP, consistent with a Thursday ruling in federal court.

Kansas, Wisconsin, Oregon govs express dismay

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, in a late Friday statement expressed disappointment with the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court and noted the state had authorized full payments earlier in the day for all eligible Kansans.

“These Kansans, most of them children, seniors or people with disabilities, were struggling to put food on their plates,” she said. “Why the President would petition the highest court to deny food to hungry children is beyond me. It does nothing to advance his political agenda. It does not hurt his perceived enemies. It only hurts our most vulnerable and our reputation around the globe.”

In a Sunday statement, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, flatly refused to try to claw back any authorized benefits. The state acted in compliance with a court order, he said.

“After we did so, the Trump Administration assured Wisconsin and other states that they were actively working to implement full SNAP benefits for November and would ‘complete the processes necessary to make funds available,’” he said. “They have failed to do so to date.”

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said her state will not comply.

“Oregon acted lawfully, given the federal court’s directive and the communications with the USDA, and my decision to ensure SNAP benefits went out quickly was in direct alignment with my food emergency declaration,” said Kotek, a Democrat. “I am disgusted that President Trump has the audacity to take taxpayers’ money away from them when they are in crisis. I have a question for the President: What would he prefer to spend the money on over groceries for people in need? This is ridiculous, immoral, and Oregon will fight this every step of the way.”

U.S. Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement: “Let’s be clear about what this is —  the Trump administration is demanding that food assistance be taken away from the households that have already received it. They would rather go door to door, taking away people’s food, than do the right thing and fully fund SNAP for November so that struggling veterans, seniors, and children can keep food on the table. It is incomprehensible, incompetent and inconsistent with our values as Americans.” 

Court action

The earlier order, from U.S. District Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island, told the department to use sources outside the contingency fund to make full November payments by Friday. The order was appealed to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, acting on behalf of the high court, granted the administration’s request for an emergency stay on Friday night, speeding up the process for what Jackson said would then be an “expeditious” decision by the appeals court but also changing things yet again.

No longer, for the moment, required by a court order to pay full November benefits, the administration instructed states in the Saturday memo to have the vendors that process payments to the electronic benefit transfer cards withhold part of the month’s allotment.

“States must not transmit full benefit issuance files to EBT processors,” Penn wrote. “Instead, States must continue to process and load the partial issuance files that reflect the 35 percent reduction of maximum allotments detailed in the November 5 guidance.”

Shutdown negotiations

SNAP funding has been a key issue during the shutdown. 

In a plan published Sept. 30, the USDA said it would continue to pay for the roughly $9 billion per month program through its contingency fund. The administration reversed itself 10 days later, telling states there would be no SNAP available for November.

A bipartisan U.S. Senate bill filed Sunday would end the shutdown. It includes provisions to fully fund SNAP, the contingency fund and the $23 billion children nutrition programs fund that may be a source of emergency funding for SNAP if the shutdown persists.

Kansas Reflector Editor in Chief Sherman Smith, Wisconsin Examiner Editor in Chief Ruth Conniff and Oregon Capital Chronicle Editor in Chief Julia Shumway  contributed to this report.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has elected to hear a case about whether education grants for students of certain ethnic backgrounds are constitutional.

The post Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear case about race-based college scholarships appeared first on WPR.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in a case over a policy to allow only sex assigned at birth to be used on a passport application. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to continue carrying out, for now, its policy requiring that passports only list a person’s sex assigned at birth.

The nation’s highest court paused a lower court order that temporarily barred the administration from enforcing the policy, codified in an executive order Trump signed in January. 

The executive order made it the “policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female” and called on the State Department to “implement changes to require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder’s sex.” 

Under then-President Joe Biden, the State Department allowed people to “select an ‘X’ as their gender marker on their U.S. passport application.”

In the unsigned court order, the majority noted that “displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth — in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”  

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, indicating a 6-3 decision.

Jackson, who authored the dissent, wrote that the court “fails to spill any ink considering the plaintiffs, opting instead to intervene in the Government’s favor without equitable justification, and in a manner that permits harm to be inflicted on the most vulnerable party.” 

“This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification,” she wrote. “Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent.” 

In February, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the administration on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people over the suspension of the Biden-era policy.

A federal judge in Massachusetts in June temporarily blocked the administration from enforcing the policy. The judge had issued an earlier preliminary injunction in April that applied to six of the case’s plaintiffs. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit kept in place the district court’s order in September, prompting the administration to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.  

Victor Schwartz, founder and president of VOS Selections, spoke to reporters outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025. Schwartz, a New York-based wine and spirits importer of 40 years, was the lead plaintiff in the case against President Donald Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court during lengthy arguments Wednesday weighed whether President Donald Trump violated the Constitution when he became the first U.S. president to impose sweeping global tariffs under an economic emergency powers statute usually reserved to combat rare and unusual threats.

Justices in both the conservative 6-3 majority and liberal minority questioned the sweeping presidential power the administration is claiming under IEEPA, including Chief Justice John Roberts. Questions about how Trump officials interpret the statute and view its limits, or lack thereof, revealed their skepticism.

Members of the president’s Cabinet, members of Congress and even comedian John Mulaney packed into the high court for the first major case of Trump’s second term to be fully argued before the justices. 

Tariffs are the centerpiece of Trump’s foreign policy, and he credits them in his recent negotiations to reach several unfinalized trade framework agreements with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and China, among other nations.

For nearly three hours the justices poked and prodded at the language of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA, a 1970s-era sanctions law that Trump has invoked since January in a series of emergency declarations and proclamations triggering import taxes on goods from nearly every country.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sat shoulder-to-shoulder with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer. 

Not far down 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.

Mulaney sat a few rows from the back, and was reportedly there to support former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who argued Wednesday on behalf of several private small businesses who sued Trump over the tariffs. Katyal, who served under President Barack Obama and hosts the “COURTSIDE” podcast, has collaborated with Mulaney on his show.

Small business owners ‘footing the bill’

The case centered on whether the president has unilateral authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA. 

Trump became the first president to ever invoke import taxes under the 1977 emergency powers law, which has traditionally used sanctions to control economic transactions of hostile groups and individuals. For example, IEEPA was first invoked during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis and later used to freeze assets of terrorist groups after 9/11. In all, presidents have declared 77 national emergencies under the statute.

Small business owners who challenged Trump’s usage of the law argued the president doesn’t have the authority to tax them, and that the policy is upending their livelihoods. 

Since Trump declared emergencies around fentanyl smuggling and imbalanced trade relationships, U.S. businesses have been paying anywhere from 10% to upwards of 50% on imports, depending on country of origin.

“It’s American businesses like mine and American consumers that are footing the bill for the billions of dollars collected,” Victor Schwartz, founder and president of the family-owned wine and spirits importer VOS Selections and lead plaintiff, said outside the courthouse following arguments.

Small businesses and Democratic state attorneys general led the charge in the two separate cases, consolidated before the Supreme Court. They allege Trump usurped taxing power, which belongs to Congress as outlined in Article I of the Constitution.

Schwartz’s fellow plaintiffs 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.

Among the state officials who also joined the suit were state attorneys general 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.

Solicitor general argues ‘power to tariff’

The Trump administration argues tariffs are a necessary tool to achieve economic and national security goals. Officials claim the president’s power to impose duties under IEEPA is spelled out in the statute’s language authorizing the president to “regulate” importation and exportation during times of an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

“One of the most natural applications of that is the power to tariff,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer — the former Missouri solicitor general — said in response to questioning by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 

“So when Congress confers the power to regulate imports, it is, naturally, conferring the power to tariff,” Sauer continued.

Chief Justice Roberts asked Sauer to clarify the “major power” he claimed was granted in the statute.

“The exercise of the power is to impose tariffs, right? And the statute doesn’t use the word tariffs?” Roberts said.

“But it uses the words ‘regulate importations,’ and historically, a core, central application of that, a big piece of that, has always been to tariff,” Sauer answered, speaking at a quick and excited pace.

Many emergencies

Justice Elena Kagan asked Sauer why a president would ever use any of the other specific and constraint-bound tariff powers delegated by Congress if IEEPA “gives the president the opportunity to blow past those limits.”

“Because if you look at Title 19 (of the U.S. Code), which is loaded with tariffs and duties of various kinds, all of them have real constraints on them. They are, you know, you can’t go over X percent, or it can’t last more than one year. And of course, the way you interpret this statute, it has none of those constraints,” Kagan said.

Sauer responded that IEEPA “has its own constraints.”

“The president has to make a formal declaration of a national emergency, which subjects him to particularly intensive oversight by Congress, repeated natural lapsing, repeated review reports and so forth,” he said.

Kagan swiftly interjected: “I mean, you yourself think that the declaration of emergency is unreviewable, and even if it’s not unreviewable, it is, of course, the kind of determination that this Court would grant considerable deference to the president on, so that doesn’t seem like much of a constraint.”

“And in fact, you know, we’ve had cases recently which deal with the president’s emergency powers, and it turns out we’re in emergencies, about everything all the time, about like half the world,” Kagan said, to laughter in the courtroom.

Trump has petitioned the high court numerous times in 2025, putting cases regarding mass layoffs and immigration on the justices’ unofficial shadow docket, which bypasses a full argument process.

Trump comfort with tariffs

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked why of the nearly 70 emergencies declared under IEEPA in past decades, none of them have invoked tariffs as a solution.

“Why do you think Presidents, Clinton, Bush, Obama, have not used IEEPA to impose tariffs? Because there have been trade disputes, certainly President Bush, steel imports and the like. Why do you think IEEPA has not been used?” Kavanaugh asked.

Sauer answered: “When you go through them one at a time, which we had our team do, it’s really hard to find one when you look at that emergency, you say, ‘Oh, tariffs is the natural tool you would use to address that emergency.’”

There are also “political reasons,” Sauer added. “I think that it’s no question that President Trump is by far the most comfortable with the tariffs as a tool, both economic and foreign policy, than many of others.”

Fentanyl smuggling targeted

Trump began imposing tariffs under IEEPA through a series of executive orders and proclamations in February and March on products from China, Canada and Mexico, declaring these countries responsible for illegal fentanyl smuggling into the United States.

The president escalated the emergency tariffs over the following months on goods from around the globe, declaring trade imbalances a national emergency. In addition to a baseline 10% global tariff, Trump specifically targeted countries that export more goods to the U.S. than they import from U.S. suppliers.

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.

Speaking to reporters following the arguments, Bessent said he thought the case “went very well.” 

“I think the solicitor general has made a very powerful case,” he said.

When asked whether the administration was crafting plans for what to do if the Supreme Court invalidates Trump’s emergency tariffs, he replied, “We’re not going to discuss that now.”

A Republican bill that would ban absentee ballot drop boxes in Wisconsin spurred debate among GOP lawmakers Tuesday about whether the proposal is based in reality.

The post GOP bill to ban ballot drop boxes in Wisconsin spurs intraparty debate appeared first on WPR.

French wine on display in a District of Columbia shop on March 13, 2025.  The Supreme Court will hear a case on Nov. 5, 2025 challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs and one of the plaintiffs is a wine importer. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will hear one of the first major cases of President Donald Trump’s second term Wednesday, when the administration defends the president’s emergency tariffs that American small business owners say are upending their livelihoods.

The question at the heart of the case is whether Trump can authorize sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA — the first time a president has used the statute to impose taxes on imports.

The suit, which challenges the bounds of Trump’s presidential power, is the first of the administration’s appeals to the high court to be fully argued on its merits. The justices have so far addressed Trump’s numerous appeals on other issues on what is known as the shadow docket, a fast track to make a decision without full arguments.

The president initially said he would attend the arguments in person but has since changed course and will go to a business forum in Miami Wednesday.

The high court convenes at 10 a.m. Eastern and live audio of the arguments is posted on the court’s website.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he plans to attend the arguments, “hopefully in the front row (to) have a ringside seat,” he told Fox News’ Jesse Watters Monday

The tariff case is “one for the ages,” said Michael McConnell, professor and faculty director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and member of the legal team representing the small businesses challenging Trump’s tariffs.

“The president has important powers that come directly from the Constitution, but he has no power to impose taxes on American citizens without the authorization of Congress, and tariffs are taxes on American importers,” said McConnell, who sat on the bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit from 2002 to 2009.

“IEEPA simply does not apply here,” he told reporters during an Oct. 28 virtual press conference. “It is a statute about imposing various forms of sanctions, economic sanctions, on countries with whom we are in conflict. It has nothing to do with imposing taxes on Americans for engaging in perfectly lawful trade with friendly nations.”

Tariffs a ‘terrible and unsustainable weight’

Victor Schwartz, founder and president of VOS Selections, a family-owned wine and spirits importer in business for four decades, said Trump’s tariff policy is an “existential threat.” 

Schwartz is the lead plaintiff in one of two consolidated cases brought by small business owners and Democratic state attorneys general to challenge the duties that can range from 10% to 50%, depending on the product’s origin.

“These tariffs threaten the very existence of small businesses like mine, making it difficult to survive, let alone grow,” Schwartz told reporters during the Oct. 28 virtual press call.

“Let me be clear, Americans are paying these tariffs, not foreign entities, and the tariffs are a terrible and unsustainable weight. We have to pay tariffs immediately at the port of entry, and we don’t see revenue from those products for at least five or six months,” Schwartz said.

Schwartz said he and his daughter, with whom he runs the business, can no longer import wines from South Africa, as tariffs on products from that country are set at 30%.

Other businesses that joined Schwartz on the lawsuit include 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.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among states, led by Democratic state attorneys general, that also sued.

The U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with the plaintiffs in finding Trump’s IEEPA tariffs unconstitutional.

The justices will also hear from two Illinois-based toy companies who, in a separate case, challenged Trump’s emergency tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. and hand2mind manufacture most of their educational toys in China, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Thailand and India. Imports from those countries are taxed anywhere from 15% to above 50%, and in the case of China have been unpredictable.

Trump says ‘country is wealthy again’ 

Trump told reporters Sunday aboard Air Force One that the case is “one of the most important decisions in the history of our country.”

In an interview with the CBS show “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday night, Trump said the economy “will go to hell” if the high court invalidates his emergency tariffs.

“Because of tariffs, our country is wealthy again,” the president told CBS correspondent Norah O’Donnell, arguing his use of tariffs as a negotiation tool will yield billions of dollars in investment in the United States from other countries. Many of the framework trade deals Trump has announced, including with the European Union, South Korea and Japan, are not yet finalized.

The government has so far collected $195 billion this year in customs duties at the end of September, according to a U.S. Treasury monthly statement.

In a September filing asking the Supreme Court to expedite the case, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote the U.S. would face “catastrophic” financial consequences, up to $1 trillion, if the emergency tariffs were overturned.

In the same filing, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued the import taxes are Trump’s “most significant economic and foreign-policy initiative … which President Trump has determined are necessary to rectify America’s country-killing trade deficits and to stem the flood of fentanyl across our borders.” 

The administration is facing pushback on those arguments. 

Scott Lincicome, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said a ruling against the tariffs “would not lead to financial ruin, as the administration has said.”

“The government also claims that ‘With tariffs, we are a rich nation. Without tariffs, we are a poor nation,’ — except studies of the fiscal trajectory of the United States with both the IEEPA tariffs, and without, show that we are drowning in debt either way,” Lincicome told reporters at the late October press briefing.

Cato filed a brief in the case arguing against the tariffs.

Some Republicans break ranks

The case has attracted nearly two dozen friend-of-the-court briefs urging the justices to deem Trump’s IEEPA tariffs illegal, including one signed by hundreds of Democrats in Congress and one Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. 

The lawmakers argued IEEPA “contains none of the hallmarks of legislation delegating tariff power to the executive, such as limitations tied to specific products or countries, caps on the amount of tariff increases, procedural safeguards, public input, collaboration with Congress, or time limitations.”

In the days leading up to the oral arguments, four Republican senators broke ranks to join Democrats in passing joint resolutions ending Trump’s emergency declarations triggering tariffs. 

One of the bills, passed Oct. 28, targeted Trump’s emergency declaration that led to 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods, including that nation’s major export: coffee. The symbolic bills are not expected to be taken up in the GOP-led House, but mark a shift from when Senate Republicans blocked a similar measure in April.

In its Supreme Court filing, Cato argued the administration’s reading of IEEPA “not only stretches the text beyond recognition but also undermines the Framers’ designs for the separation of powers. Accepting the government’s theory would mean that Congress, through ambiguous text and silence, can transfer sweeping legislative power to the President — a result this Court has cautioned against.”

In an amicus brief supporting Trump’s trade strategy, the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank heavily involved in Trump’s second presidential campaign, defended the tariffs as a “pillar of the America-first policies of the current administration” and argued the president has unilateral power to impose the taxes under a Depression-era law.

Executive orders and more

Trump began imposing tariffs under IEEPA through a series of executive orders and proclamations in February and March on products from China, Canada and Mexico, declaring these countries responsible for illegal fentanyl smuggling into the U.S. 

The president escalated the emergency tariffs over the following months on goods from around the globe, declaring trade imbalances a national emergency. In addition to a baseline 10% global tariff, Trump specifically targeted countries that export more goods to the U.S. than they import from U.S. suppliers.

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.

Months after a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling found that a Wisconsin-based religious charity should be exempt from certain taxes, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul is challenging religious tax exemptions entirely.

The post Wisconsin DOJ suggests eliminating religious tax exemptions appeared first on WPR.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

As Democrats across the country devise ways to match Republican redistricting efforts, a long-standing battle over congressional maps has been quietly progressing in one of the nation’s most competitive swing states.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is taking up two gerrymandering lawsuits challenging the state’s congressional maps after years of back-and-forth litigation on the issue. Over the summer, it appeared redistricting efforts would go nowhere before the midterms; the state’s high court in June rejected similar lawsuits.

But liberal groups have found new ways to challenge the maps that the state Supreme Court appears open to considering. This time, plaintiffs are requesting the court appoint a three-judge panel to hear their partisan gerrymandering case, and a new group has stepped into the fray with a lawsuit that argues a novel anticompetitive gerrymandering claim.

The jury is still out on whether those rulings will come in time for 2026.

“Could they be? Yes. Will they be? That’s hard to say,” said Janine Geske, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice.

Some developments in the cases in October indicate that the gerrymandering fight in Wisconsin is far from over.

The justices have allowed Wisconsin’s six Republican congressmen to join the cases as defendants. The congressmen are now looking to force two of the court’s liberal justices, Janet Protasiewicz and Susan Crawford, to recuse themselves from the cases. Both justices were endorsed by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin; Protasiewicz criticized the maps on the campaign trail, and Crawford’s donors billed her as a justice who could help Democrats flip seats.

Some are unsure why the Republican congressmen are entering the fight now, months after the liberal groups filed the new cases.

“They took their time to even seek intervention, and now they’re seeking recusal, and now they’re trying to hold up the appointment process. I’m sure their goal is to try to throw sand in the gears of this litigation,” said Abha Khanna, a plaintiff attorney in Bothfeld v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, the partisan gerrymandering case requesting that the courts appoint a three-judge panel to review the maps.

The offices and campaigns of the six Republican congressmen did not respond to requests for comment.

Khanna said her team filed the lawsuit with enough time to potentially redraw the maps, despite the congressmen’s recent actions.

“There certainly is time to affect the 2026 elections,” she said.

This lawsuit lays out a more familiar partisan gerrymandering argument, in which lawyers say Wisconsin’s congressional maps discriminate against Democratic voters. Six of the state’s eight House seats are filled by Republicans, even though statewide elections have been close partisan races. Sens. Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin — a Republican and Democrat, respectively — won their most recent statewide elections by a percentage point or less, while Gov. Tony Evers kept his office by more than 3 percentage points in 2022 (Evers will not be seeking reelection in 2026).

The plaintiffs believe they ultimately have a strong case because the state’s high court ruled in 2023 that the “least change” principle — which dictated the 2021 maps to be drawn “consistent with existing boundaries” of the 2011 maps — should no longer be used as primary criteria in redistricting. The state legislative maps were changed. But the federal district maps were not.

In effect, the maps that were proposed by Evers in 2021 continued on the legacy of Republican gerrymandering, Khanna said. The lawsuit, filed in July, requests the appointment of a three-judge panel to hear the case, after the state Supreme Court in June rejected the plaintiffs’ petition.

“It’s a judicially created metric that violates the principles of the (Wisconsin) constitution,” Khanna said. “This can be decided without any fact-finding at all. The court can decide it as a matter of law, and then we can proceed quickly to a remedial map.”

Not everyone involved is so optimistic that this will be resolved quickly. Jeff Mandell, a plaintiff attorney in the redistricting lawsuit alleging that the maps are illegally too favorable to incumbents — a new argument that hasn’t been tested in the state — said it is “exceedingly unlikely” that new maps could be drawn in time for the midterm elections. Primary candidates must file their nomination papers to the elections commission by June 1, 2026. The final district lines must be in place by spring for candidates to circulate their papers among the right voters.

“If we don’t have maps by the end of March or so, it’s very, very difficult to run the election next November,” Mandell said.

Even if the Wisconsin Supreme Court rules that the current maps are unconstitutional, the most likely scenario would punt the task of redrawing to partisan officeholders, he added — a process that could hinder easy consensus and potentially draw out the timeline for months.

Mandell’s lawsuit is arguably facing a bigger hurdle as it attempts to make the case that the districts are drawn in a way that makes it extremely difficult for challengers to have a real chance.

The exception is Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District, where Rep. Derrick Van Orden has won by fewer-than-four-point margins and is currently facing three challengers, including the well-funded Democrat Rebecca Cooke, who lost to him in 2024.

The median margin of victory in Wisconsin’s remaining congressional districts is about 29 percentage points, according to a NOTUS review.

“Thirty points is not something you can overcome by having a really good candidate, it’s not something you can overcome by having a great campaign plan and executing it flawlessly, it’s not something you can overcome when there’s a swing election,” Mandell said.

The next months will prove whether the incumbent argument is convincing to Wisconsin’s justices, who have heard their share of redistricting cases.

This story was produced andoriginally published by Wisconsin Watch and NOTUS, a publication from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Allbritton Journalism Institute.

Wisconsin’s redistricting fight isn’t over, but will new maps be drawn in time for 2026 election? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

A Wisconsin judge on Friday put on hold his order that requires elections officials to verify the citizenship of all 3.6 million registered voters in the battleground state before the next statewide election in February.

The post Wisconsin judge puts on hold ruling that required citizenship check of voters appeared first on WPR.

President Donald Trump attends inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump sought to remove his status as the only felon to be elected president by appealing his conviction on 34 New York state charges just before midnight Tuesday, arguing, in part, that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling giving the president broad immunity invalidated the conviction.

In a 96-page appeal nearly 18 months after his state court conviction that he falsified business records by disguising hush money payments over an alleged affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels as legitimate legal payments, Trump’s attorneys recited a list of complaints over his prosecution.  

Among those complaints were that New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, targeted the then-former president, and that the presiding Democratic judge created at least the appearance of partiality, the appeal said.

“This is the most politically charged prosecution in our Nation’s history,” the lengthy brief began. “After years of fruitless investigation into decade-old, baseless allegations — and under immense political pressure to criminally charge President Donald J. Trump for something — New York’s district attorney manufactured felony charges against a once-former and now-sitting President of the United States.”

Bragg’s office declined to comment on the appeal Tuesday. 

Hush money

The case centered on payments Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, made to Daniels in the run up to the 2016 election. Trump wanted to keep her from telling the tabloid National Enquirer about a tryst she said she had with the married Trump years earlier. 

After Trump won the White House, his private business reimbursed Cohen for the payment to Daniels, according to the 2023 indictment.

Federal prosecutors had explored whether the payment to Daniels could have violated campaign finance laws. Cohen paid Daniels to keep her from publicizing her account during Trump’s 2016 race against Hillary Clinton. 

They ultimately declined to bring charges.

Trump’s appeal this week said New York prosecutors impermissibly depended on campaign finance violations to charge him with felony business record falsification. 

To be charged as a felony, the business records must be falsified in service of another crime, but Trump argued Monday those allegations could not have been charged because federal law preempts state law.

The New York law also requires prosecutors to show the defendant had “intent to defraud” to win a conviction for falsifying business records. Bragg and his team did not do that at trial, Trump’s attorneys said.

SCOTUS immunity ruling

Trump’s attorneys also said the trial court admitted evidence that should have been protected by presidential immunity, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that established broad protections for sitting presidents.

The Supreme Court opinion said the president was not only protected from criminal charges based on official actions, but that any official action could not be used as evidence to prove an allegation that centered on an unofficial act.

The prosecution did include some official acts Trump took while in office, his lawyers said.

Prosecutors examined Hope Hicks, a former Trump White House communications director, Trump’s statements on social media, communications with former Attorney General Jeff Sessions — which Trump denies took place — and the president’s general work habits while in office. 

Those examples should all be considered official actions that are immune from being used in a criminal case, Trump’s attorneys wrote.

Lack of recusal broached

Trump’s attorneys also argued Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the trial, should have recused himself.

Merchan donated a total of $25 to Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign and to a political action committee called “Stop Republicans.” 

The nominal contributions violated a “clear bar on sitting judges making political contributions,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.

His daughter also worked for a political organization that opposed Trump in 2020, the brief noted.

Trump had asked Merchan to recuse himself during the trial phase, but the judge declined. Trump’s attorneys said Monday that was a “clear ground for reversal” of the conviction.

“In the face of all these undisputed and damaging facts, Justice Merchan’s refusal to recuse created, at the very least, ‘the appearance of bias,’” they wrote.

Elected felon 

Whatever problems arose from Trump’s prosecution in New York, it had the political effect of elevating his stagnant comeback campaign.

At the nadir of his popularity following his 2020 election loss and the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, several credible challengers entered the Republican presidential field for the 2024 cycle and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis led in some early polls.

But four criminal prosecutions, of which the New York hush money case was the first, had the effect of galvanizing Republicans and other voters who believed the former president was the victim of a political prosecution, and he easily won the GOP nomination. 

The prosecutions played out amid the 2024 campaign, and a New York jury convicted Trump of 34 felony counts on May 30, making him the first former president to be convicted of a felony.

He won that November’s election and became the first felon to be elected president. 

He successfully delayed sentencing until after the 2024 election. Merchan imposed a sentence of unconditional discharge on Jan. 10, 2025, allowing Trump to avoid prison time. 

President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during an event announcing broad global tariffs in the Rose Garden of the White House on April 2, 2025.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — More than 200 Democratic lawmakers and one Republican are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global emergency tariffs.

The 207 members of the U.S. House and Senate argued in an amicus brief late Friday that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, does not authorize the president to unilaterally impose tariffs. The lawmakers urged the justices to agree with a lower court finding that Trump’s wide reaching import taxes triggered under IEEPA violate the Constitution, which grants duty powers to Congress.

“IEEPA contains none of the hallmarks of legislation delegating tariff power to the executive, such as limitations tied to specific products or countries, caps on the amount of tariff increases, procedural safeguards, public input, collaboration with Congress, or time limitations,” the lawmakers wrote. 

“In the five decades since IEEPA’s enactment, no President from either party, until now, has ever invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs.” 

Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., ranking members of the Senate committees on Foreign Relations and Finance, led the signatures of 36 members of the upper chamber. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, was the single GOP co-signer on the brief. A majority of House Democrats, 171 in total, also joined.

The lawmakers filed the friend-of-the-court brief ahead of oral arguments scheduled before the Supreme Court next week on the question of whether Trump’s emergency tariffs are legal. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in late August upheld a lower court ruling striking down the administration’s IEEPA tariffs.

The Senate is expected to vote on three bills this week that aim to terminate Trump’s import taxes on products from Canada, Brazil and any other country subject to emergency duties.

Fentanyl, trade deficits as emergencies

Trump began imposing tariffs under IEEPA in February and March on China, Canada and Mexico, declaring these countries responsible for illegal fentanyl smuggling into the U.S. 

The president escalated the emergency tariffs over the following months on goods from around the globe, declaring trade deficits a national emergency. A trade deficit means the U.S. imports more goods from a country than that nation purchases from U.S. suppliers.

Domestic businesses and purchasers now pay the U.S. government anywhere from 10% to 50% in tariffs on most imported products. The government had collected $195 billion this year in customs duties at the end of September, according to a U.S. Treasury monthly statement.

State AGs and businesses launched court challenge

Several private businesses and a dozen states sued Trump over the use of the emergency statute to trigger the steep import taxes.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among states, led by Democratic state attorneys general, that brought the suit.

Businesses that sued the Trump administration include the lead plaintiff, V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based company that imports wine and spirits from 16 countries, according to its website. 

Other plaintiffs include 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.

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Trump’s tariffs under IEEPA illegal in late May.

Crawford's decisions leaves the court with a 3-3 split between liberals and conservatives.

The post Wisconsin Justice Susan Crawford recuses from Gableman disciplinary proceedings appeared first on WPR.

Days after a man was charged with stalking her, Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Jill Karofsky told a forum in Madison that political violence is “on the rise.”

The post Wisconsin Chief Justice Jill Karofsky: Political violence is on the rise appeared first on WPR.

Michael Gableman | Up Front screen shot

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Susan Crawford issued an order Thursday recusing herself from former Justice Michael Gableman’s disciplinary case with the state Office of Lawyer Regulation. 

Gableman faces a suspension of his law license for his conduct during his widely derided review of the 2020 presidential election. The Supreme Court is responsible for delivering the length of his suspension and determining any monetary penalties he’s responsible for paying. 

Crawford’s recusal comes after Gableman had filed a motion requesting that she not participate in the case because of comments she made about him on the campaign trail earlier this year. However, Crawford isn’t recusing at Gableman’s request. 

Instead, Crawford wrote, she is stepping aside from weighing in on the case because part of the allegations against Gableman are his actions during an open records lawsuit against him in the circuit court of Dane County Judge Frank Remington. Crawford, formerly a judge in that circuit, said that because of her proximity to Remington’s court, she learned facts about that case that are not considered part of the official record in the disciplinary matter. 

“I believe it is likely I was exposed to information and impressions related to Attorney Gableman’s conduct and demeanor in the circuit court that fall outside of the record before this court,” she wrote. “Because I may have been exposed to factual allegations beyond those Attorney Gableman has chosen not to contest, I may have ‘personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.’”

Because she recused herself for another reason, Crawford dismissed Gableman’s request as moot.

Gableman had also requested the recusal of Justice Rebecca Dallet, arguing that comments she made about his judicial record when she announced her campaign for the Court in 2017 meant she couldn’t impartially assess his case. In an order, Dallet denied the request, writing that her comments about him in 2017 have nothing to do with how she assesses actions he took in 2021. 

“Although Gableman tries to characterize my comments as reflecting a view of ‘Gableman’s moral turpitude,’ and his ‘professional judgment and character,’ no objective reasonable observer would understand them as such,” she wrote. “Simply put, I expressed my disagreement with Gableman’s actions as a candidate and justice between 2008 and 2018. That disagreement is irrelevant to whether he engaged in attorney misconduct in 2021 and 2022, and whether I can impartially adjudicate claims that he did so now.”

With Crawford recusing, the Court is divided 3-3 between liberals and conservatives — though conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn has previously sided with the Court’s liberals in cases relating to the 2020 presidential election.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Michael Gableman in Dane County Circuit Court on Thursday, June 23 | Screenshot via Wisconsin Eye

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman could be forced to pay $48,192 to cover the costs of the state Office of Lawyer Regulation’s investigation into him for his conduct during his widely derided review of the 2020 presidential election. 

That review of the election, which did not turn up any proof of wrongdoing, has resulted in 10 counts of misconduct being filed against the former judge. Late last month, he agreed to have his law license suspended for three years because of the charges. 

Last week the OLR filed a statement arguing that the case against Gableman should follow Supreme Court precedent, which would mean the costs incurred by the OLR investigator and independent referee overseeing the case should be paid by the lawyer under investigation. The referee issued a recommendation stating that there was no reason the case shouldn’t follow the existing precedent.

Both the responsibility for paying the bill and the ultimate punishment will be decided by the state Supreme Court. 

Also last week, Gableman filed a motion in his case last week seeking the recusal of liberal justices Susan Crawford and Rebecca Dallet.

Gableman’s filing notes that Crawford called him a “disgraced election conspiracy theorist” and accused him of leading a “sham” investigation of the 2020 election during her campaign earlier this year. 

His filing notes comments Dallet made in 2017 after she had announced her campaign for the Court but before Gableman had decided not to run for another term. Dallet accused Gableman of not recusing himself from cases in which he had a conflict of interest, called his 2008 campaign “one of the most unethical” in state history and said he was a “rubber stamp for his political allies.”

Gableman argues that these comments create the appearance of bias and that the justices shouldn’t weigh in on his punishment. If they were to recuse, the Court’s conservatives would hold a 3-2 majority — though Justice Brian Hagedorn sided with the Court’s liberals in the 2020 election cases it decided.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Voting carrels set up at Madison's Hawthorne Library on Election Day 2022. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Department of Justice on Monday filed an appeal of a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge’s decision to require that state election officials conduct an intensive search for registered voters who aren’t citizens. 

Judge Michael Maxwell’s Oct. 6 ruling required that the Wisconsin Elections Commission cross reference its voter registration list against the state Department of Transportation’s records to determine people’s citizenship status when they applied for a driver’s license or state ID. He also ordered that WEC and local election clerks stop accepting new voter registrations without obtaining proof of citizenship — though that portion of the ruling was put on hold pending the appeal. 

Under current law, people registering to vote must affirm they are U.S. citizens but are not required to provide proof. However, lying about citizenship status while registering to vote is a crime. 

Fears of non-citizen voting have frequently been raised by Republicans in recent years who, since 2020, have expressed  skepticism of election administration. The initial Waukesha County lawsuit was brought by a pair of right-wing election conspiracy theorists. 

While claims of non-citizen voting revolve around the threat that the issue could swing an election result and occasionally cases are found and prosecuted, there is no evidence that non-citizens vote in substantial enough numbers to influence election results in Wisconsin or anywhere across the country. 

In the appeal, filed in the Madison-based District IV, the DOJ argued that the ruling “reshapes Wisconsin election law” while leaving many details vague and potentially violating other laws. 

“The circuit court’s decision and order drastically alters voter registration and elections in Wisconsin, violates state law, and threatens voting rights,” the appeal states.

Lead by Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, the filing states that Maxwell’s requirement to match data with Department of Transportation records would be based on data that’s up to eight years old, which could result in the disenfranchisement of people who were legal residents when they applied for their driver’s license but have since become citizens with the right to vote. 

The appeal also argues that Maxwell’s ruling orders local election officials to change their practices even though they weren’t a party to the lawsuit and does not outline what “proof of citizenship” election officials should use to register people to vote. 

“The court issued this sweeping relief despite no evidence of injury to Respondents: they speculated about the risk of vote dilution by illegal voters, but provided no evidence that a noncitizen had voted or registered to vote in Wisconsin,” the appeal states.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE