With a new law cutting Medicaid funding to certain clinics, Planned Parenthood estimates 200 of its clinics in 24 states are at risk of closure with the cuts, and nearly all of those clinics — 90% — are in states where abortion is legal. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

A federal judge ruled Friday against the Trump administration’s efforts to strip Medicaid funds from primarily Planned Parenthood-affiliated abortion providers.

Massachusetts U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denied the federal government’s motion to lift a block on a new law, rejecting the U.S. Department of Justice’s argument that allowing Planned Parenthood to continue to bill for Medicaid while their lawsuit plays out would cause the government “irreparable injury.” She said the plaintiffs were more likely to suffer injury if the provision went into effect, such as having to close clinics and reduce services.

“Here, Defendants suffer no irreparable harm where Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed in establishing that Section 71113 violates several constitutional provisions,” Talwani wrote in an order, denying the federal government’s request to stay two preliminary injunctions. “[I]t is precisely because Congress targeted only a ‘certain’ group of entities for exclusion from Medicaid programs — all but two of which are Planned Parenthood Federation Members — that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that Section 71113 is unconstitutional.”

Late last month Talwani ordered a partial and then a full preliminary injunction after Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its Massachusetts and Utah affiliates sued in early July over the new federal reproductive health restriction. After unsuccessfully asking the district court to lift the block, the federal government appealed the preliminary injunctions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Shortly after, the DOJ filed a motion asking the district court to reconsider the preliminary injunctions. Last week, the appellate court declined the government’s request, pending the district court’s decision. Defendants are now expected to re-appeal the injunction to the First Circuit. 

The provision, set to expire July 4, 2026, would primarily affect health clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood, which has estimated it could lose 200 of its 600 clinics, many of which are in rural areas and others that are critical abortion-access points. 

But two other affected organizations are Health Imperatives in Massachusetts, which according to WBUR, operates seven clinics and serves about 10,000 patients, and Maine Family Planning, which has also sued over the provision. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Lance Walker in Maine, an appointee of President Donald Trump, denied Maine Family Planning’s motion for a preliminary injunction, despite the organization facing losses up to nearly $2 million, potential layoffs, and disruption of care for about 8,000 patients.

“This ruling is a devastating setback for Mainers who depend on us for basic primary care,” said George Hill, president and CEO of Maine Family Planning, according to Maine Morning Star. “The loss of Medicaid funds — which nearly half our patients rely on — threatens our ability to provide life-saving services to communities across the state. Mainers’ health should never be jeopardized by political decisions, and we will continue to fight for them.”

Does the new federal Medicaid rule unlawfully target Planned Parenthood?

Federal funding of abortion is already prohibited in most cases under the Hyde Amendment. But the new funding rule would bar from the Medicaid program reproductive health clinics that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal and state Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2023 for health services like birth control, cancer and gender-affirming care. 

The legislation has caused confusion throughout the Planned Parenthood network because its definition of “prohibited entity” includes a barred organization’s “affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics.”

The nonprofit health network comprises its national membership and advocacy organization, PPFA, and nearly 50 independently structured and operated affiliates, some of which do not offer abortion, such as co-plaintiff Planned Parenthood Association of Utah. These organizations are reimbursed after the fact for specific health services covered by Medicaid. 

Even though the provision is currently blocked, several Planned Parenthood clinics around the country have already closed, both because of the new rule and the Trump administration’s other restrictions stripping abortion providers of federal family planning grants. 

Many of the recently shuttered clinics did not provide abortion, like in Ohio, and some are in states where abortion is illegal, like in Louisiana. 

Planned Parenthood’s attorneys have argued that the new federal Medicaid rule violates their equal protection, speech and association rights, because it excludes their clinics from the Medicaid program on the basis of their association to other organizations — in this case organizations that provide abortions and advocate for abortion rights.

“[S]ince this Court issued its decision, the government has now admitted that Section 71113 (the “Defund Provision”) was intended to punish Planned Parenthood for its ‘political advocacy,’” the plaintiffs wrote in a recent brief opposing defendants’ motion to lift the injunction. 

Plaintiffs referred to a recent public statement made by Andrew G. Nixon, a spokesperson for co-defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

“States should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen political advocacy over patient care,” Nixon said, after the district court’s initial preliminary injunction on July 22. 

But in court, the federal government argued the tax and spending cuts law excludes large abortion providers only because they provide abortions. They say they are also excluding smaller or non-abortion-providing affiliates, not because of their speech or advocacy, but because of their “non-expressive activities of corporate control and financing.” Their basic argument is that money to any Planned Parenthood clinic — even for health services unrelated to abortion — is money for abortion. 

“[B]ecause money is fungible, extending the funding restriction to affiliates prevents an organization from undermining federal policy not to subsidize abortion providers by shifting funds between entities that do not perform abortions and entities that do,” defendants wrote.  

The DOJ has also rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the federal legislation is a bill of attainder, which refers to legislation that unconstitutionally imposes punishment on a specific person or group of people without a judicial trial. 

“Halting the flow of federal Medicaid funds to those entities bears no resemblance to the forms of punishment that implicate the Bill of Attainder Clause,” reads the DOJ’s motion. “Historically, bills of attainder involved punishments such as ‘death,’ ‘banishment,’ and ‘imprisonment.’”

But Talwani disagrees with the DOJ’s reasoning.

“[T]here is no indication in the record that Planned Parenthood Members share revenues from Medicaid reimbursements,” she wrote. “The result is a restriction on associational freedom that is in no way ‘essential to the furtherance of [Defendants’] interest’ in withholding funds from certain abortion providers … and instead imposes a wholly unwarranted burden.”

While the new federal tax and spending cuts law does not mention Planned Parenthood by name, a bill introduced this year with similar language is explicitly titled, “Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2025.” Meanwhile, several state legislatures have successfully stripped funding from the organization. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program in late June after a long legal fight, but the state’s affiliate just sued again over Medicaid eligibility.

“You have to be living in a cave to believe this isn’t about Planned Parenthood,” said abortion law expert Mary Ziegler. “The reason Planned Parenthood is a target is because it’s a twofer. It’s both the nation’s largest abortion provider and also the nation’s best advocate for abortion rights. … But I think the problem for Planned Parenthood is that disaggregating the two is hard, and proving congressional intent to target one rather than the other is challenging.”

Anti-abortion activists and conservative commentators have accused Talwani, an Obama appointee, of judicial activism.

“Now the abortion industry is suing to block the will of the voters, duly passed by Congress,” wrote Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, in a recent op-ed for National Review. “They argue they’re constitutionally entitled to our tax dollars in perpetuity, and they’ve found a single activist judge willing to take their side and impose that view on the entire nation — for now.”

Ziegler said the bill of attainder argument is rarely used, but is plausible in this case. 

“Generally, with a bill of attainder, you have to show that there’s no other kind of valid legislative purpose, and that it’s selectively targeting the person who’s suing,” she said. “In this case, it seems pretty clear that there’s some targeting of Planned Parenthood happening. … But I think there being no other purpose is more complicated.”

Ziegler said the case will likely be hard to win if it gets to the majority conservative Supreme Court. But if the injunction holds, Planned Parenthood could run out the clock on the one-year Medicaid restriction. She thinks it might seem too politically risky to renew this provision right before the 2026 midterm elections to more moderate Republicans in the House, like Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, who told NOTUS in May, “from the standpoint of providing health care to women, you know, I’m not for taking away people’s health care.”

“They’ll either have to say, ‘All our boasts about defunding Planned Parenthood were not real, because Planned Parenthood is going to get funded again,’ or they’re going to have to make the funding prohibition permanent, which could have the consequences that people like Lawler were afraid of.”

A firefighter moves hazard fuel while working on the Bear Gulch fire this summer. Many in the wildland fire community believe the leadership team managing the fire sent crews into an ambush by federal immigration agents. (Facebook/Bear Gulch Fire 2025)

Wildland firefighters were stunned when federal immigration authorities last week raided an active wildfire response in Washington state, arresting two firefighters and sidelining crews for hours.

Wildfire veterans say the operation was nearly unprecedented, a breach in longstanding protocol that federal agents don’t disrupt emergency responders to check immigration status.

Worse, many wildfire veterans believe the management team overseeing the fire crews played a key role in handing over the firefighters to immigration authorities.

Stateline spoke to nearly a dozen firefighters, agency staffers and contractors familiar with the incident, who shared their belief that the top officials assigned to the fire deployed the crews to a remote location under false pretenses so federal agents could check their immigration status. Most of them spoke privately for fear of retaliation.

The raid has reverberated among fire crews, agency leaders and contractors. Wildfire veterans say the arrests have stoked fear and distrust among firefighters on the ground. They worry that crews may be scared to deploy if they may become a target for immigration raids.

“There’s really no way [the wildfire management team] could not have been involved,” said Riva Duncan, a former wildland fire chief who served more than 30 years with the U.S. Forest Service. “We’re all talking about it. People are wondering if they go on a fire with this team, if that could happen to them.”

Since the incident became public, the wildfire world has been abuzz with anger at that team — California Interagency Incident Management Team 7. Made up of federal, state and local fire professionals, the team was assigned to oversee the response to the Bear Gulch fire, which has burned 9,000 acres in and around Olympic National Park in Washington state.

One firefighter who was present at the raid said he is convinced that Team 7 leaders sent their crews into a trap.

“I felt beyond betrayed,” said the firefighter, who requested anonymity to protect his career. “What they did was messed up. They’d been talking in their briefings about building relationships and trust. For them to say that and then go do this is mind-boggling. It boiled my blood.”

Team 7 Incident Commander Tom Clemo, in an email, declined to comment, citing an active investigation. Tom Stokesberry, the team’s public information officer, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

According to daily Incident Action Plans filed by Team 7 and posted online, the crews had previously been digging holding lines, working to protect structures and conducting mop-up work. The two crews targeted by federal agents had not been assigned to work together in the days leading up to the raid.

Then, on Aug. 27, both crews — workers from private companies contracted to help fight the fire — were told to deploy to a staging area where they would cut firewood for the local community. The firefighter who was present at the raid told Stateline that a division supervisor told the crews he would meet them at the site, but never showed up.

After arriving at the site, the firefighter said, the crews found piles of logs, seemingly from a timber operation. Not wanting to damage a logging company’s property, they waited for a management team leader to show up with further instructions.

After an hour, unmarked law enforcement vehicles pulled up to the site and federal officials began questioning the firefighters. Duncan, the former Forest Service firefighter, said immigration agents would not have been able to access the site without help from Team 7 leaders.

“Fire areas are officially closed, very secure and there are roadblocks,” she said. “Somebody would have had to tell these agents how to get there.”

In a news release, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said its agents assisted with an investigation led by the federal Bureau of Land Management. While the agency’s release did not mention the nature of the investigation, multiple wildfire sources said the feds claimed they had uncovered fraud on time cards submitted by the crews.

Table Rock Forestry Inc., an Oregon-based company whose crew was one of the two at the scene, was allegedly subjected to the raid due to a half-hour discrepancy on a time sheet, said Scott Polhamus, secretary of the Organization of Fire Contractors and Affiliates. Table Rock Forestry is a member of the fire contractors’ group.

Multiple wildfire veterans said that time card discrepancies are not uncommon at wildfires, where crews work long days and it’s not always clear if lunch breaks or errands in town count toward working hours. Such mix-ups are typically sorted out between organizational leaders. Calling law enforcement in such a scenario is almost unheard of.

“This is not the first time a crew has been called on the carpet for maybe padding their time a bit,” Duncan said. “You deal directly with the company. It’s just absolutely mind-boggling to treat it as a criminal issue.”

After about five minutes discussing the time card issue, according to the firefighter who was present at the raid, federal agents spent the next three hours checking each firefighter’s immigration status.

The Customs and Border Protection news release announcing the immigration arrests made no mention of time sheets or any evidence that the investigation had turned up fraud. It did state that the two companies whose crews were raided had their contracts terminated by the government.

Polhamus, with the fire contractors’ group, said that claim is false. While the crews were demobilized and sent home, the feds have not actually ended the companies’ contracts or ability to accept future deployments.

A Customs and Border Protection public affairs specialist did not immediately respond to questions about the investigation, the alleged fraud or federal agents’ coordination with Team 7.

The Washington State Department of Natural Resources, the state’s lead wildfire response agency, said federal officials did not notify their state counterparts about the investigation.

“DNR was not informed of the incident until well after the fact,” said Ryan Rodruck, wildfire on-call public information officer with the agency.

Rodruck noted that the fire response was under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service. Press officers with the Forest Service did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Multiple wildfire sources said the crews would not have been sent to the staging area where they were ambushed without the knowledge of top leaders on the fire’s management team.

The two crews that were raided have a diverse mix of firefighters, many of them Hispanic. One of the crews has many foreign workers who are legally in the country on H-2B visas. Duncan, the former Forest Service firefighter, said it was likely not a coincidence that two crews with many brown-skinned members were targeted in the raid.

Two of the firefighters were arrested, federal officials said, for being in the country illegally.

One of the firefighters who was arrested is represented by Innovation Law Lab, an Oregon-based legal group that defends refugees and immigrants. Isa Peña, the group’s director of strategy, said the Department of Homeland Security has not revealed the whereabouts of their client.

The firefighter, who Peña declined to name, has been in the U.S. since he was four years old and served as a firefighter for the past three years. Immigration advocates are alarmed that the raid was potentially arranged by California Interagency Incident Management Team 7, the leaders charged with overseeing the wildfire response.

“There certainly is concern if that is the case that individuals are being handed over to immigration as they’re trying to keep our communities safe,” Peña said. “Conducting immigration enforcement while brave members of our community are risking their lives to protect us is really disgusting.”

Several wildland fire veterans also noted that the raid took place on Team 7’s final day in charge of the fire response, hours before a Washington team rotated in to take command. The California team headed home and left the new team to face the media scrutiny and angry firefighters in camp.

“If you’ve got ICE teams pulling your contractors out, you’d want to cut and run as soon as you can,” Polhamus said.

On a forum for wildland fire professionals on the social media platform Reddit, many expressed anger at Team 7. Firefighters also took issue with the assertion, shared by federal immigration officials, that the raid did not disrupt firefighting operations.

“It’s total bulls***,” said Duncan, the former Forest Service firefighter. “Whoever made that statement doesn’t understand the work. To take two crews off of a fire that’s only 13% contained, that seems ridiculous at that point in a fire. That does seem very unusual.”

Many wildfire veterans said that conducting a raid at the site of an active wildfire was reckless and irresponsible.

“Having people on the line that you don’t expect to be there is an issue,” said Polhamus, with the fire contractors’ group. “When you need crews and you are taking resources to check them for immigration status, we can all think of better ways to address that.”

Duncan said she’s spoken with firefighters still assigned to the Bear Gulch fire who are disgusted with the situation and want to leave.

“The three principal wildland fire values are duty, respect, integrity,” she said. “Utmost in that is taking care of your people. If you can’t trust the people you’re working with when things get hairy, that’s a concern.”

In Washington and Oregon, elected leaders have decried the raids and are pushing for more information on the status of the firefighters who were arrested. Federal immigration officials have said little since the news release announcing the arrests.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

(The Center Square) – Municipal spending rose 7.1% in 2023 in Wisconsin, something attributed to the inflationary costs of labor and other expenses, according to a new report.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Students in Wisconsin who receive free or reduced lunch can apply for free driver’s education classes. 

“Doing what’s best for our kids is what’s best for our state and ensuring the next generation of drivers can make good and safe decisions behind the wheel is critically important to building safer roads and communities for everyone,” Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement this week. 

The Driver Education Grant Program has provided $6 million annually to more than 10,000 students since it began in September 2024. 

The first $1.5 million in grants this year will support the first wave of applicants with the same amount released every three months. 

Common Ground pushes for access

Common Ground, a nonpartisan coalition that addresses community issues, has advocated for more access to driver’s education for low-income high school students. 

“This grant program will reduce racial and economic disparities around access to driver education and the ability to obtain a driver’s license,” the organization said in an Aug. 25 news release.

Common Grounds launched a listening campaign in 2021. Its leaders spoke with about 1,000 people, and reckless driving was the primary concern. 

According to data from the Milwaukee County Motor Vehicle Collision Dashboard, individuals younger than 20 years of age had the highest injury rate by age group in Milwaukee County. 

What you need to know

The program will pay to send approximately 11,500 low-income students per year to driver’s education classes on a first-come, first-served basis. 

Interested students and/or their families ages 14 to 19 can go to the WisDot website and fill out an application. WisDOT also created a map to help students and families find a program near them. 

Funds are paid directly to the driving school. The funding covers 30 hours of classroom time, six hours of observation time and six hours of driving. 

After applying, eligible students will receive a confirmation email with confirmation “coupon” numbers for the course. 

They can share the coupon number with any licensed driving school in the state to start the course. 

Driving schools will enter the coupon number in their student records upon course enrollment. Payment for the course will be sent electronically to the schools from Wisconsin DMV.

For more information

Check out the WisDot website for details.

Free driver’s ed is available for eligible Wisconsin youths. Here’s how it works. 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.

Municipalities and nonprofits across the country might have to abandon planned solar energy projects after the EPA announced it was terminating a $7 billion grant program to expand solar access.

The post Solar for All would have powered emergency housing in a Midwest town. Then the EPA cut the funds. appeared first on WPR.

Wisconsin’s honeybees are facing numerous threats. But the state’s tiniest livestock have friends and the ability to adapt and thrive, bee experts say.

The post Wisconsin’s tiniest livestock — honeybees — are threatened by mites, pesticides and lack of food appeared first on WPR.

The federal complaint accuses Kalshi of false advertising and of breaking laws that regulate gambling.

The post Lawsuit from Ho-Chunk Nation accuses online platform of illegal sports betting in Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

Ascension Wisconsin and UnitedHealthcare have been locked in a months-long dispute over reimbursement rates. And if the two sides don’t reach an agreement by October, Ascension could be dropped by UnitedHealthcare.

The post Ascension Wisconsin could be dropped by UnitedHealthcare if new contract isn’t reached by October appeared first on WPR.

Lexi Westley and four other women’s cross country athletes at UW-Madison are coming forward about what they call abusive behavior by their coach Mackenzie Wartenberger.

The post This former UW Badgers athlete says she encountered ‘toxic’ coaching. Now she’s speaking up. appeared first on WPR.

Let’s Go Fishing Chairman Joe Oprosko said time on the water can ease loneliness, spark memories, and bring joy to people who may otherwise feel isolated.

The post Let’s Go Fishing nonprofit brings mission of hope and healing to central Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

The report found the median wage for Wisconsin workers — $25.01 per hour — reached a record high for the second year in a row, though the report says this doesn’t represent the full story when it comes to workers’ wages. (Justin Sullivan | Getty Images)

The Trump administration’s policies are defining the current economic moment Wisconsin workers are facing — undercutting economic growth and undermining workers, according to the 2025 State of Working Wisconsin report. 

Every year since 1996, the High Road Strategy Center, a University of Wisconsin-Madison nonprofit think tank, produces the report to present information on the state of work and jobs, including who is “winning” and “being left out” of the economy, though future reports may be in trouble. 

Laura Dresser, a co-author of the report and High Road Strategy Center associate director, said in a statement that the 2025 data shows “some real strengths for working Wisconsin owing to the strong recovery from pandemic shutdowns.” 

“Long-standing inequalities are still with us, and federal policy puts substantial clouds on the horizon,” Dresser said. “I’m especially concerned about the administration’s attacks on the integrity of federal economic data.”

Joel Rogers, director of the center and a UW-Madison professor, and Leslie Vasquez, outreach specialist and communications director, are also authors of the report that was released the Friday before Labor Day. 

Dresser’s concern about federal jobs data stems from President Donald Trump’s decision last month to remove Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from her position after a dismal jobs report that showed hiring slowed in July and was weaker in May and June than previously reported. He falsely claimed the reports were rigged as his justification. 

The report warns that the approach being taken by Trump is a “disaster for economic decision making and for public trust.” 

“Good economic decisions require reliable data,” the authors stated in the report. “Without reliable independent data, we cannot understand the economy nor, more narrowly, can the High Road Strategy Center continue confidently producing reports that draw on it. With hopes for continued national commitment to reliable data, and fears about the quality of what politically motivated ‘revisions’ will do, we will anxiously monitor changes in leadership and data at the BLS.”

Wage median reaches high, gaps ongoing 

The report found the median wage for Wisconsin workers — $25.01 per hour — reached a record high for the second year in a row, though the report says this doesn’t represent the full story when it comes to workers’ wages. 

While Wisconsin’s median wage reached a new high, a difference in wages exists among workers based on gender, race and ethnicity. Men’s median wage — $27.05 — in 2024 was more than $4 per hour higher than women’s median of $22.97, a 15% difference. 

When race is considered, the differences become more stark. White men have the highest wages at a median of $28.54 per hour. The median for white women was about 17% less at $23.66 per hour. 

The median wages for workers of color fell considerably below that of white men and women. Black men and women had about the same hourly median wage at $19.93 and $20.29 — 29% less than white men. Hispanic men had a median wage of $18.56 and Hispanic women a median of $17.57.

The report also found that over 800,000 workers — nearly a third of Wisconsin’s workforce — make less than $20 per hour. 

The report says raising the minimum wage would be one way to help close these gaps. Wisconsin’s minimum wage is currently $7.25, a number in line with the federal minimum wage and that has been unchanged since 2009. 

“Raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour would not only be politically popular but would directly or indirectly raise the wages of 231,800 (or 18%) of women workers, 36,200 (or 25.6%) Black workers, and 50,200 (or 26.6%) Hispanic workers in the state,” the report states. 

In response to the report, Peter Rickman, president and business manager of the Milwaukee Area Service & Hospitality Workers (MASH) Union, also urged Wisconsin lawmakers to make increasing the state’s wages a priority this fall.

“The service and hospitality working class needs comprehensive living wage legislation with a $20 per hour floor, yearly adjustment for inflation, reduction of the tip penalty, and restoration of local control,” Rickman said. “Democrats and Republicans alike tell us that they want to represent the working class. Now is their time to show us by introducing and passing comprehensive living wage legislation.”

Meanwhile, Wisconsin reached a record of 3,058,500 jobs in July, but the state’s overall jobs growth has been weak. 

Wisconsin has added about 1,400 jobs per month in 2025 — growing about half as fast as the national rate. According to the report, the state has 2% more jobs than before the pandemic, while the U.S. overall has seen 5% more jobs. 

Unemployment remains low in Wisconsin with a 3.1% rate in July 2025. Wisconsin also has a 66.4% labor force participation rate, higher than the national average of 62.6%. 

“The jobs and unemployment data are strong, but the economy is cooling off after the rapid recovery from pandemic shutdowns,” the report states. 

It also finds the economic softening mirrors the national environment where analysts have warned of a slow down or even a recession.

Federal policies undermine growth 

Federal policy changes under the Trump administration are contributing to these outlooks, according to the report.

“For workers, the warning signs and the brewing economic storm of tariffs, immigration crackdowns and federal disinvestment are especially concerning,” the report states. “While the current labor market is solid, these substantial disruptions may not only slow our overall economic growth, but also reduce the power of working people, as opportunities become more scarce.”

The report predicts that tariffs, which are taxes on imports to the U.S., will raise the price of goods for American consumers, the Trump administration’s deportation agenda will undermine the country’s economic strength by hobbling jobs growth and federal cuts to social safety nets will hit the state’s low-wage workers hardest.

“Economists and investors have observed that immigration changes may constrain economic growth even more than the high cost of tariffs. Employers are already complaining about the impact of the raids on their workforce and customers,” the report states. 

According to the report, 320,000 immigrants reside in Wisconsin and generate $23 billion in economic output annually. In 2023, federal data found that immigrants constituted 7% of Wisconsin’s workforce. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests in Wisconsin have doubled under the Trump administration, and of late, the administration, which promised to focus on “criminals,” has been shifting towards deporting people with no criminal convictions and no pending criminal charges. 

“Despite considerable economic and cultural contributions, immigrants face persistent barriers to fully participating in the workforce and community life,” the report states. “The current administration’s anti-immigrant policies have increased fear and dampened new immigration, constricting the Wisconsin economy where labor markets are already tight.”

The Trump administration has also approved cuts to federal Medicaid and food assistance programs, which Gov. Tony Evers’ administration estimates could cost Wisconsin over $284 million and puts thousands at risk of losing support.

“The federal budget, enacted this summer, contains hundreds of provisions with disturbing implications for working people. It holds enormous tax breaks for the rich,” the report states, noting that an analysis by the Institute Taxation and Economic Policy Wisconsin found the “annual tax break to Wisconsin’s richest 1% will be $67,000. And the tax break for the bottom fifth of households in the state? Just $70.” 

“All of this, and more, is coming and will hit lower wage working families across the state especially hard,” the report states. 

The upheaval in federal policies also comes as participation in unions in Wisconsin, which the report says helps with improving conditions for workers, are down as a result of state policies. 

From 2011 to 2024, unionization in Wisconsin fell from 14% to 7%. Over the same time period, union coverage nationally only fell two percentage points from 13% to 11%. 

That drop in Wisconsin, the report notes, comes after over a decade of public sector unions being disempowered in Wisconsin by Act 10, the state law signed by former Gov. Scott Walker in 2011 that significantly reduced collective bargaining powers of public sector employees. 

In addition, the Trump administration has targeted unions, ending collective bargaining for a million federal employees — four out of five federal workers represented by unions at over a dozen federal agencies. He has also fired members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the agency tasked with protecting labor rights, for “unduly disfavoring the interests of employers.” 

“Despite federal and state policies that have impeded unionization over the last half century,” the report states, “unions continue to provide workers with the means to improve wages and working conditions in their jobs.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, pictured July 31, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

The economy-wide tariffs President Donald Trump placed on nearly every U.S. trading partner are illegal, a federal appeals court said Friday.

The International Economic Emergency Powers Act does not give the president the power to impose tariffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a 7-4 decision upholding a May decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade and dealing a blow to Trump’s signature trade policy.

The unsigned majority opinion said the tariffs “exceed the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA’s text.”

However, the judges delayed their ruling from going into effect until October, providing the Trump administration an opportunity to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling also does not affect other tariffs Trump issued under different authorities, including industry- or material-specific tariffs on automobiles, steel and aluminum.

In a post to social media, Trump said he would appeal to the Supreme Court, where he predicted victory, and repeated his claim that tariffs were an essential economic tool.

“If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country,” he wrote shortly after the decision was published. “It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong.… If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America. At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products.”

Several Democratic states challenged the IEEPA tariffs. Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman argued on their behalf on July 31. The 11 judges on the appeals court expressed skepticism of both sides during those arguments.

In a statement Friday, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield called the ruling “a huge win for Americans.”

“Every court that has reviewed these tariffs has agreed that they are unconstitutional,” he said. “This ruling couldn’t come at a better time as people are walking into their local stores and seeing price increases for school supplies, clothes, and groceries.”

State fairs are a big draw this time of year for millions of visitors. Whether it's getting a chance to pet a newborn calf, take a ride in a giant plastic ball or eat any number of fried foods, going to the fair is always an experience.

The post Let’s go to the state fair! We’re taking a tour of America’s favorite summer tradition appeared first on WPR.

A new Gallup poll shows the share of adults in the United States who say they drink alcohol has fallen to its lowest point in the nearly 90 years.

The post Alcohol use for Americans hit a record low. What does that mean for Wisconsin? appeared first on WPR.

It's been a hot and humid summer, with heavy rainfall and damaging flooding. But as the temperatures cool and fall creeps in, Wisconsin's apple crop is ready to ripen.

The post Wisconsin’s apple crop looks ripe for the picking despite wet, hot summer appeared first on WPR.

Wake surfing is growing in popularity. But the wake boats that make it possible continue to stir up contentious debate on Wisconsin’s lakes.

The post Wisconsin’s wake boat controversy, explained appeared first on WPR.

An annual $6 million allocation for the Wisconsin Driver Education Grant has been made permanent. High school students who are ready for driver's education and qualify for free or reduced lunch can apply online through the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.  

The post $6M now available annually to fund driver’s education for low-income Wisconsin students appeared first on WPR.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem delivers remarks to staff at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 28, 2025.  (Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A three-judge panel of a federal appeals court unanimously ruled Friday the Trump administration likely acted unlawfully when it revoked extensions for temporary protections for more than 600,000 Venezuelans. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit panel agreed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s March decision to block Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision to vacate two extensions of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, to the group until October 2026 that the Biden administration put in place early this year.

One of the groups of Venezuelans had their TPS expire in April and the second is set to expire in September. The three-judge panel found that the Trump administration’s decision to end TPS in April is also likely unlawful.

The panel said Noem did not have the authority to revoke the TPS extensions granted by then-DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. 

Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, Salvador Mendoza Jr. and Anthony Johnstone, who were both appointed by former President Joe Biden, reached the decision.

The judges ruled that the law creating TPS, which grants work visas and deportation protections to nationals from a country deemed too dangerous to return to, was designed to create “predictable periods of safety and legal status for TPS beneficiaries” and the administration’s cancellation of the extension contradicted that goal.

“Sudden reversals of prior decisions contravene the statute’s plain language and purpose,” they wrote. “Here, hundreds of thousands of people have been stripped of status and plunged into uncertainty. The stability of TPS has been replaced by fears of family separation, detention, and deportation.”

“Congress did not contemplate this, and the ongoing irreparable harm to Plaintiffs warrants a remedy pending a final adjudication on the merits,” they continued.

A spokesperson for DHS did not return a message seeking comment Friday.

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration in May to end TPS for the group of 350,000 Venezuelans that expired in April. It is unclear how Friday’s order will affect that group.

The roughly 250,000 Venezuelans in another group are set to have their TPS expire Sept. 10 after the DHS revoked the extension.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell administers the oath of office to Lisa Cook to serve as a member of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve System during a ceremony at the William McChesney Martin Jr. Building of the Federal Reserve May 23, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge Friday said she would set an expedited briefing schedule for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook’s challenge to President Donald Trump’s attempted firing of her earlier in the week. 

Cook is aiming to keep her position until her term expires in 2038, arguing that Trump’s attempt to remove her has no legal basis. U.S. District of Columbia Judge Jia M. Cobb, whom former President Joe Biden appointed in 2021, gave Cook until Tuesday to respond to the government’s brief that seeks to justify her removal.

The deadline is part of a fast-tracked briefing process for the case that could test the ability of the Federal Reserve Board to operate independently. If Cook is removed, Trump would select another member of the seven-person panel, likely meaning a majority of the board would align with the president.

The legal challenge is likely to head to the Supreme Court. 

Cook filed a suit against the president Thursday after he posted to social media Monday that he would fire her over allegations she submitted improper paperwork in order to obtain a favorable mortgage on a second home. She has not been charged with a crime. 

An attorney for Cook, Abbe David Lowell, argued Friday that the allegations against Cook – that she engaged in mortgage fraud – did not qualify as “just cause” for removal. 

Trump has argued that under the Federal Reserve Act, he has the authority to dismiss a governor for “just cause,” which is typically defined as gross misconduct, but Lowell argued Trump was simply seeking to install a governor more aligned with his policy views. 

“Cause for the president means she won’t go along with the interest-rate drop,” Lowell said during Friday’s hearing. 

For months Trump has pressured the Fed to lower interest rates. Cook, the first Black woman appointed to the board, has consistently voted with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell to not lower rates. 

Justice Department attorney Yaakov Roth, who is representing the administration, argued the statute defined just cause with open-ended language that gave the president broad discretion to fire a Fed member.

Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, made the accusations of mortgage fraud. He referred Cook’s mortgage application to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.  

In court filings, the Fed did not take a position but pushed for a quick ruling in order “to remove the existing cloud of uncertainty.”

(The Center Square) – The plan from a couple of Wisconsin’s progressive lawmakers to block ICE efforts in the state is drawing sharp, quick criticism.