The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building pictured on Nov. 25, 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court late Wednesday upheld a lower court’s order requiring the U.S. Education Department to reinstate more than 1,300 fired employees and blocking an executive order to dismantle the department and a directive to transfer some services to other federal agencies.

The ruling from a three-judge panel in the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit marks a setback for President Donald Trump’s education policy agenda that includes transferring the federal student loan portfolio and special education services out of the Education Department on the way to closing the department entirely.

The panel kept in place a preliminary injunction issued by a district court in Massachusetts requiring the administration to reverse course at least while a case  challenging its education policies is ongoing.

“What is at stake in this case, the District Court found, was whether a nearly half-century-old cabinet department would be permitted to carry out its statutorily assigned functions or prevented from doing so by a mass termination of employees aimed at implementing the effective closure of that department,” 1st Circuit Chief Judge David J. Barron wrote in the panel’s opinion.

“Given the extensive findings made by the District Court and the absence of any contrary evidence having been submitted by the appellants, we conclude that the appellants’ stay motion does not warrant our interfering with the ordinary course of appellate adjudication in the face of what the record indicates would be the apparent consequences of our doing so,” Barron wrote.

The Trump administration had immediately challenged an order in May from U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun of Massachusetts.

Joun granted a preliminary injunction in a consolidated case stemming from a pair of lawsuits from a coalition of labor and advocacy groups and a slew of Democratic attorneys general.

One of the lawsuits comes from a coalition of Democratic attorneys general in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin.

The other lawsuit was brought by the American Federation of Teachers, its Massachusetts chapter, AFSCME Council 93, the American Association of University Professors, the Service Employees International Union and two school districts in Massachusetts.

The Education Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday. 

Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) said SB 231 offers tax credits to encourage more films to be made in Wisconsin. (Screenshot via WisEye)

Wisconsin Republicans advocated on Tuesday for a bill to encourage filmmaking in Wisconsin through tax credits and a state film office. Another bill would declare that “gig workers” for app-based delivery services aren’t employees of a company.

During a Tuesday Senate Utilities and Tourism committee meeting, Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) said SB 231 offers tax credits to encourage more films to be made in Wisconsin. Bradley described  a recent movie called “Green and Gold,” about a fourth-generation dairy farmer in Wisconsin who is on the verge of losing his farm and makes a bet on the Green Bay Packers to help save it. 

Bradley said the director of the film, Anders Lindwall, chose to make it in Wisconsin, but that decision meant a financial sacrifice as the director turned down a major studio offer to purchase his film. The studio wanted him to relocate production to Alabama — a state with film tax incentives.

“He turned down the offer to keep his project authentically Wisconsin,” Bradley said. 

Wisconsin had a film incentive for a brief time in 2010 under former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, though the Republican-led Legislature discontinued that program just a few years later. Now, Wisconsin is  one of only four states in the country without a film office and one of 13 without any film tax incentives. 

The bill would create new tax credits including one for 30% of the total cost of the salaries paid to employees who reside in Wisconsin and work in Wisconsin, one for 30% of acquiring or improving property and one for 30% production costs paid by a company to produce a film, video, broadcast advertisement or television production. A person’s total credits would be capped at $1 million for a fiscal year. The bill would also create a new State Film Office housed in the Department of Tourism that would implement the tax credits.

Rep. David Armstrong (R-Rice Lake) said having the rate at 30% would put Wisconsin in the top tier of states offering film incentives.

“How many of you like me flinch when you see the Georgia peach logo in the credits after a movie or TV show?” Armstrong asked at the hearing. “Do we want Illinois or Minnesota or Georgia to poach productions that could just as easily be shot in Wisconsin?”

Bradley said the bill “aims to make Wisconsin competitive by attracting filmmakers and productions through meaningful incentives, which in turn support local businesses, job creation, and increased tourism. Simply put, it would encourage filmmakers like Mr. Lindwall to choose Wisconsin, bringing their stories and economic activity to our state.” 

The bill has broad bipartisan support with cosponsors including Sens. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee), Romaine Quinn (R-Birchwood) and Brad Pfaff (D-Onalaska).

Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove) expressed some concerns about whether the funding for the proposal would be included in the budget since it is not in the bill. Wisconsin lawmakers are in the progress of writing the next biennial budget and while Gov. Tony Evers included a similar proposal in his budget, it was pulled out along with more than 600 other items by Republican lawmakers on the committee.

“I have a motion to bring that back in,” Bradley told Ratcliff. 

“But if we pass this bill, it does not include the funding?” Ratcliff asked. 

“This bill does not have the funding. The funding would come through the budget… We’re going to fight real hard to try to get that funded,” Bradley said. 

According to fiscal estimates, the cost to state revenues would be at max $10 million. The new office would require three new positions in the tourism agency and would cost about $199,300 in 2026 and $254,000 in 2027. 

Film stakeholders testified in favor of the bill during the hearing. 

Paulina Lule, a Milwaukee native and an actress who recently starred in the MGM+ series Emperor of Ocean Park and has been in other shows including The Good Place and Scandal, told lawmakers that the bill would help people who want to showcase Wisconsin as it is in real life.

Lule said she has a film she has been working on called Sherman Park, which is about the neighborhood in Milwaukee. 

“I have had producers who have been interested in making this film as long as I make it not in Sherman [Park],” Lule said. “I don’t want to, and so this film has sat unfilmed for 10 years.” 

Lule said she recently began shooting a short film version in the Milwaukee park and was proud to be able to include a shot of the neighborhood’s name on a sign. She said that making films in Wisconsin would be a powerful way to promote the state and encourage people to visit. 

“Show off Racine. We can show off the real Green Bay, not just the Packers. There’s more to Green Bay than just the Packers as much as I love them,” Lule said. “You’re missing out on one of the broadest… ways of promoting the state is by having stories that are authentically about Wisconsin, made in Wisconsin… with actors in it that sound like they’re from Wisconsin.”

Michelle Maher, a River Falls movie theater owner, said that having movies filmed in the state would also provide an opportunity for local theaters. She noted that the movie Sinners, a vampire movie set in the Jim Crow South directed by Ryan Coogler and starring Michael B. Jordan, was filmed on-site in Clarksville, Mississippi.

“It was a town similar to the size of the town that I live in, River Falls,” Maher said. “Unfortunately, that town doesn’t have the movie theater that I have in my town… [Coogler and Jordan] got together and said, we are going to make sure this movie shows in this town, so they brought in a crew to be able to show that movie locally to the town that it was filmed at. What if there was a movie filmed in River Falls? Not only would I have a huge premiere for a regional area, I would have an annual event built in that would generate huge tourism opportunities and other ways to invent and reinvent that same wheel.”

Classifying ‘gig workers’ as non-employees

Lawmakers also considered SB 256, which would declare delivery drivers for app-based companies, including Uber and Doordash, are not employees of the company for the purposes of compensation insurance, minimum wage laws and unemployment insurance. The bill would allow “portable benefits” for those workers.

Bradley, the coauthor of the proposal, said the legislation is needed so that companies can provide benefits to workers without changing their “independent contractor” status. Under this type of benefit system, accounts are linked to a worker rather than the employer, meaning the benefits follow workers to other employment opportunities, and companies and workers would both be able to contribute.

“The gig economy is here to stay, and with it, the flexibility that many workers value and desire,” Bradley said. “Unfortunately, current laws prevent drivers from accessing crucial benefits. These include health care, paid leave and retirement savings. That’s the problem SB 256 aims to address. This legislation creates portable benefit accounts funded through contributions from the platforms based on drivers’ earnings. These accounts can be used by drivers to pay for a range of expenses, including health care, retirement, or coverage of loss of wages due to illness or an accident.” 

Lawmakers have considered the proposal before, including last session. The bill passed the Senate but never came up for a vote in the Assembly. 

The bill specifies that if an app-based delivery company doesn’t prescribe dates, times of day or a minimum number of hours during which someone must work; terminate the contract of the driver for not accepting a specific request for transportation or delivery service request; allow drivers to work for other companies; or restrict the driver from working in any other lawful occupation or business, then a driver is not considered an employee or agent of the company. 

“Previous versions of this legislation have garnered bipartisan support, and that support is only growing,” Bradley said. “It’s time we modernize our policies to meet the realities faced by thousands of Wisconsin workers.”

Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick) said he found it “embarrassing, disappointing” that the committee was considering the proposal. He said there is an “independent contractor travesty in this country.” 

“As an independent contractor, these workers know what they’re signing up for,” Rep. Alex Dallman (R-Markesan) said. “They understand that they’re on an independent contractor basis. They understand that they want to remain independent contractors.” 

Katie Franger, public affairs manager for Uber, told lawmakers that flexibility is the “fundamental reason” people choose the company’s platform for work. She said that the legislation would fit with this by allowing workers to have flexibility in benefits as well.

“Portable benefits allow each individual to choose what truly matters to them, ensuring resources are directed where they’re most needed,” Franger said. 

When Smith asked about why they couldn’t provide the benefits already, Addison DiSesa, legislative policy advisor for DoorDash, said “providing the benefits proactively jeopardizes the independence of these workers” and that the bill “empowers workers to get access to the benefits that they want while protecting their independence.” 

Maliki Krieski, a Ripon mother and Doordash worker, told lawmakers that she supports the bill because she wants to keep the flexibility that is part of the work currently. She said it allows her to take care of her child, who has diabetes.

“Our state system is outdated…,” Krieski said. “The one thing that stands between us and any form of health care incentive, retirement plan… The only thing that stands between us and that is the state law.”

Stephanie Bloomingdale, president for the Wisconsin AFL-CIO, cautioned that the bill seeks to create an exemption to current law and could be harmful to workers, who depending on the situation might qualify for certain benefits. She also pointed out that it doesn’t require companies to provide access to any benefits. 

“It exempts app-based delivery drivers from settled Wisconsin law concerning our workers compensation, minimum wage and unemployment insurance laws,” Bloomingdale said. 

Bloomingdale noted that to be considered an “independent contractor,” when it comes to worker’s compensation, workers have to meet a nine-part test, otherwise a worker is automatically considered an employee. The bill would replace this with the four-part test, which she said would be quite “minimal.” She noted that depending on the situation some workers could potentially qualify for worker’s compensation. 

A legislative council representative explained that “the default is that you’re an employee, and then there’s a nine factored test and that leads to a determination that you might be an independent contractor.” The bill, he said, would implement a “route that’s more streamlined for these app-based drivers.” 

“We oppose the bill because it does not guarantee any more or less flexibility for workers. It does not guarantee good wages and it does not guarantee benefits for workers in the gig economy. It does none of these things because the bill eliminates employee status for these workers and all the rights that come with that status,” Bloomingdale said. “The bill does not guarantee or require that these tech giants provide any benefits, portable or fixed.”

Bloomingdale said the bill would instead just “create special exemption for these powerful corporations at the expense of Wisconsin’s working men and women” and called the bill a “slippery slope.” 

“If this bill passes, we will be back here as those who do the bidding on international corporations come to this legislative body to similarly carve out a certain class of workers to evade state law and reclassify each group of workers one by one,” Bloomingdale said. “If these companies succeed in passing this bill, their low-pay, no-protection business model could expand in virtually every industry.”

Wisconsin Watch is starting a new beat called pathways to success, exploring what Wisconsin residents will need in order to build and keep thriving careers in the future economy — and what’s standing in their way. 

To learn more about the jobs Wisconsin will most need to fill in the coming years, we spoke to Matt Kures, who researches state labor and demographic trends as a community development specialist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Division of Extension.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

What numbers do you think best tell the story of Wisconsin’s labor market and what’s coming?

Unemployment rates are still near historic lows, but despite that, we’re still not seeing a large number of people being hired. The hiring rate has slowed down. We’ve also seen fewer people being laid off. So more businesses are actually retaining employees that maybe they wouldn’t have otherwise. There’s still some hangover from the pandemic and ability to hire people, so they’re a little bit hesitant to let them go. 

The number of job openings has ticked down as well. We’re still seeing some uncertainty from a lot of businesses in terms of what’s going to happen with inflation, interest rates, tariffs and just the broader U.S. economy. 

Those numbers put together tell of a labor market that’s good for people who have a job right now, but maybe a little bit challenging for people looking for a job.

And how about when it comes to long-standing trends in Wisconsin’s labor market or demographics? Are there numbers you like to bring up that you think people don’t tend to know?

If you look at the working-age population declining from 2020 to 2030, and then kind of leveling off from 2030 to 2040, we’re just not going to have strong growth in the number of individuals who are working age in the state. That’s mostly true across the state, although there are some counties that will be projected to grow, like Dane and Eau Claire. 

And then also, the combination of individuals of retirement age or nearing retirement age that are going to either leave the labor force or change the types of work they’re doing. If we look at the manufacturing sector, for instance, we have almost 131,000 individuals in that industry who are aged 55 or older, or almost 28% of that industry. So in those large employment sectors in the state, how do we think about replacing the workforce or augmenting the workforce going forward due to retirements or just shifting abilities due to the aging population?

How are the challenges or opportunities different in different parts of the state, say in urban areas versus more rural areas?

Certainly many of the non-metro areas do have an older population and will continue to have an older population going forward, so they will most likely face some of the bigger challenges in terms of some of the population shifts by age group. In some of those areas too, you have some of the bigger challenges in developing housing … to try and attract a new labor force. So those challenges are a bit twofold.

Would you describe Wisconsin as having a labor shortage?

The labor shortage is probably not as significant as it was, say, two or three years ago. But with our structural population distribution in terms of our age groups, we’re going to face challenges going forward. We’re going to have fewer individuals of working age. 

What are your thoughts on how Wisconsin could fix that?

There’s a lot of strategies out there, and not one is going to be the sole key to solving labor problems going forward. Those strategies include thinking about ways to attract new individuals to our communities, creating quality places that people want to reside in, thinking about housing availability and affordability, and creating ecosystems where people can start a business. 

So those are community-based strategies that people or communities can think about. But it’s also going to require improving productivity, and that could be through AI, automation, other capital investments and equipment, and thinking about new production techniques. 

Can you tell me about some of the fastest-graying industries in Wisconsin, the ones where the most workers are aging out?

So we can look at this in two different ways: by numbers or percent. Some industries, on a percentage basis, have a very high share of individuals who are aging out of the workforce, but some of those are not the largest sectors in the state of Wisconsin. 

For instance, in agriculture and natural resources, 31% of employees (covered by unemployment insurance laws) are age 55 or older, but there’s only about 8,400 of them. (Federal agriculture census data shows around 65,000 Wisconsin farmers in that age group, most of whom are not covered by unemployment insurance laws.) 

But if you look at real estate, transportation, warehousing, wholesale trade, manufacturing and public administration, those are some of the biggest industries that have the highest share of individuals aged 55 or older, with manufacturing certainly being the largest in terms of total numbers with an estimated 131,000 employees aged 55 or older. That’s not surprising given that it’s a very large employment sector in the state. 

You can also look at, say, health care and social assistance. They’re below the state average for their share of individuals aged 55 and older, but there’s almost 99,000 of them in that age category. So that’s an industry sector that, as we age as a state, will probably face even greater labor demands. 

Of those graying industries, are there any that you’re particularly worried about?

I don’t know if “worried” is the term I would use because different industries will respond in different ways. For instance, manufacturing can probably rely a bit more on things like automation, while other industries might be able to have some of their jobs done remotely. But health care and manufacturing are two very large cornerstones of our economy, and they are going to face challenges with labor availability going forward.

When you say remotely, you mean they might use workers in other states?

Yes. But in an industry like health care, for the most part, that’s probably not going to be an option.

Can you tell me about a few of the fastest-growing industries in Wisconsin?

To be honest, I haven’t looked at any of the recent numbers on a sector-by-sector basis. I can say that health care and social assistance has been one of the largest growing sectors in the state, and that’s also true nationally.

Regardless of the industry, we’re seeing growth in demand for digital skills across all industry sectors. Especially in professional and technical services, we’re seeing a higher demand for digital skills, but across all industries, a lot of job postings require some sort of knowledge in terms of digital skills, which may be anything from software development all the way down to just being able to work with social media or operate word processing.

Anything else you want to talk about?

Thinking about the aging workforce, there are a lot of opportunities for businesses to make sure they capture and transfer a lot of the knowledge that those individuals may have gained over their careers. As new employees or younger employees come into those firms, are there opportunities to match up younger and pre-retirement workers to share all that knowledge and make sure that it benefits the organization going forward? 

Also, with the aging workforce, are there opportunities to help those who may want to change their occupation or career trajectory going forward? Maybe they’ve done construction labor for a long time and now they want to try something different because they just physically can’t meet the demands anymore. There are a lot of opportunities.We can take advantage of the knowledge, skills and abilities that those individuals have or may want to have going forward. 

Have a question about jobs or job training in Wisconsin? Or want to tell a reporter about your struggle to find the right job or the right workers? Email reporter Natalie Yahr nyahr@wisconsinwatch.org or call or text 608-616-0752‬.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Wisconsin’s workforce is aging. How can communities and employers prepare for the future? 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.