Advocates and loved ones of Salah Sarsour gathered in Washington D.C. to demand his release from federal immigration detention. Sarsour — a green card holder and lawful permanent resident of Milwaukee and president of the city’s Islamic Society — was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents earlier this month. The federal government accuses Sarsour, who is Palestinian, of lying on his green card application in 1993. 

Sarsour’s son Kareem said that his father is the main caregiver for an elderly member of their family who has dementia. Kareem demanded Sarsour’s release, emphasizing that he is  a father, grandfather and leader in the community. 

Supporters are demanding that Sarsour be released and returned to his family, and that all charges against him be dropped. They also  demanded that the U.S. to stop weaponizing immigration law to target pro-Palestine advocates, and for Congress to investigate the targeting of lawful permanent residents for First Amendment activity. 

Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said of Sarsour, “He has spent more than 30 years of his life strengthening those around him. As a Palestinian resident of this country, he has built a huge community. He’s a business owner, a job creator, a leader who is well respected in the inter-faith community, among elected officials, and a diversity of communities fighting in the state of Wisconsin.”

Awad and other supporters of Sarsour say that he’s a political prisoner being persecuted over his opposition of the Israeli government and support for the Palestinian people. “To abduct Salah Sarsour for his politically protected First Amendment activity, upholding justice for the Palestinians and for all people, sends the troubling message that our government is failing to protect basic freedoms that sets America apart from other countries,” said Awad. “We call on this administration to listen to the American people who have been telling them in one form after another to stop the Israelization of U.S. policy, and to serve the American people.” 

Sarsour’s loved ones say that he has long been vocal about Israel and Palestine, having grown up in the West Bank where he was detained for two years by Israeli authorities. Sarsour’s family members say  he was tortured while in custody, a practice which has been documented by humanitarian organizations even in recent years. The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement earlier this month that Sarsour had been accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at Israeli armed forces.

Sarsour is currently being held in an ICE facility in Indiana. Dr. Osama Abu Irshaid also echoed the First Amendment concerns around Sarsour’s arrest. “What does it even mean?” Irshaid asked. “What does it even mean to be a threat to our foreign policy? Someone who stands up and speaks on behalf of the oppressed. On behalf of a people who were the subject and continue to be the subject of a genocide.” 

Naming other Muslim activists who’ve been arrested or detained by ICE for speaking out for Palestine, Irshaid asked, “what does that mean? Does it mean that America stands for genocide?” Irshaid said that the Trump administration  has openly pursued what it views as political opponents, including high profile people such as former FBI director James Comey, and New York Attorney General Latisha James.

“So America has to reckon with this stuff,” said Irshaid. “It’s no longer about minorities. You could be a white American and be shot in broad daylight and get called a domestic terrorist, as what happened to the two American citizens who were shot by a rogue agency called ICE now,” a reference to the shooting deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis earlier this year.

“And you could be abducted from the middle of the street just because you dare to say I disagree with this government, and I disagree with our foreign policy,” Irshaid said. “And you could be targeted just because you dared, at one point, to prosecute Donald Trump based on the laws of the land.” 

Irshaid stressed that it is time for people to realize “that the weaponization of our own government against any minority group, against any people means that it could be weaponized against the entire American people.”

Oussama Jammal, secretary general of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, also said that he feels Sarsour is being detained for political reasons. “This is a free country, we are allowed to speak our minds,” said Jammal. “Otherwise we could be another rogue country of the ones that we see — what do they call it — banana republics. So we demand the immediate release of Mr. Salah Sarsour, and truly hold the American values ahead of any other agenda other than an American agenda.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum defended the Trump administration’s approach to energy production Monday, as Democrats on a U.S. House Appropriations panel accused the department of kowtowing to oil and gas interests at the expense of renewable energy.

Burgum said President Donald Trump’s administration aimed to ease regulatory burdens on oil and gas producers, and said former President Joe Biden sought to shut out those industries in a misguided attempt to boost renewable energy sources. 

Burgum indicated at several points that what Democrats called a pro-oil-and-gas bias was a correction to Biden’s “over-rotation” toward wind and solar.

“The last administration said ‘all of the above’ and then there were a set of rules that were completely punitive against the stuff that we needed to actually, you know, have baseload power in this country,” he said about Biden’s oil and gas policy. “It was just too early. It was too premature to say we’re going to shut all that down and we’re going to transition.”

But Democrats on the House Appropriations Interior-Environment Subcommittee said the Interior Department under Burgum was doing exactly the opposite: subsidizing fossil fuels while discouraging solar and wind power.

“Shortly after taking office, the White House moved quickly to halt offshore wind development and took steps to rein in solar and wind projects,” Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, said. “Why? Why are we kneecapping industries that create jobs, expand our energy supply and help address the climate crisis? Because this administration’s energy policy is based on political grievance, ideological hostility and, of course, propping up big oil and gas.”

California Democrat Josh Harder called for an overhaul of permitting regulations to enable faster construction of renewable energy infrastructure. Some of that responsibility fell to Congress, he said, but he complained that Trump was making it even harder for wind and solar projects to get off the ground.

“There is, again, one standard for one type of energy and another standard for another type,” he said. “I hear the complaints about previous administrations putting their thumb on the scale. What I see now is secretary-level approval required for one type of project, but not for another. And again, I don’t think that’s sustainable or good policy.”

Burgum responded that the administration was pro-hydro power and pro-nuclear, but was wary of “weather-dependent, intermittent” solar and wind power because those sources can be more expensive for ratepayers.

Cutbacks in parks, Bureau of Indian Education 

The topic of Monday’s hearing was Trump’s $16 billion budget request for the Interior Department for the next fiscal year. The request would keep the department’s funding roughly even with the current fiscal year, which was a nearly 12% cut from fiscal 2025.

Democrats voiced their disapproval of that new baseline, including a $757 million cut to National Park Service operations.

“The department is on a dangerous course,” Pingree said. “This budget would only make the damage worse, and as the ranking member of the subcommittee, I will do everything in my power to oppose these reckless cuts and fight the administration’s destructive policies.”

Members of both parties raised questions about proposed cuts to the Bureau of Indian Education budget after the Department of Education offloaded part of its responsibility in that area to Interior. 

The BIE would receive about $437 million less under the proposed budget, a roughly 32% cut.

“While your agency begins to manage these new programs, I would strongly recommend — I’m sure you will — carrying out thorough tribal consultations to ensure that there are no funding award delays or program disruptions that would potentially harm,” full Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole told Burgum.

Cole, an Oklahoma Republican and enrolled member of the Chickasaw Nation, is the first Native American to lead the Appropriations Committee.

Full committee ranking Democrat Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, who is also the top Democrat on the subcommittee that oversees Education Department funding, said she was concerned about the shift.

“I worry about transferring the programs from Education,” she said. “Quite honestly, (BIE) doesn’t have a great track record, and I don’t know whether or not the funding that goes along with those programs is going to come over.”

Burgum said 16 full-time staffers in four Education Department programs would transfer to the BIE, along with all the funding for the programs.

Local issues

Members also raised a host of specific concerns.

Minnesota Democrat Betty McCollum criticized the U.S. Senate vote last week to undo restrictions on mining in the Boundary Waters in northern Minnesota.

Rep. Jake Ellzey, a Texas Republican, focused much of his time on poor conditions at Maryland’s Fort Washington, a unit of the National Park Service a short drive from Washington, D.C.

Ellzey pointed to photos of buildings in need of repair and noted that a longtime park ranger retired last year and her role has not been filled, leaving only two rangers across almost 350 acres.

And subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican, joked that the Bureau of Land Management’s $144 million wild horses and burros program was his top priority.

“If you can solve that problem, I don’t care what happens to the rest of the budget,” Simpson said. “We’ve been trying to deal with that for so long that it’s crazy.”

WASHINGTON — Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer will step down from her post, the Trump administration announced Monday, following multiple reports alleging work misconduct including misuse of funds and more.

Chavez-DeRemer, a Republican from Oregon who lost her U.S. House reelection bid in 2024, will take a role in the private sector, White House Director of Communications Steven Cheung wrote in a social media post. 

“She has done a phenomenal job in her role by protecting American workers, enacting fair labor practices, and helping Americans gain additional skills to improve their lives,” Cheung said. 

Keith Sonderling will lead the agency as acting secretary of Labor, he added. Sonderling also worked at the Department of Labor during the first Trump administration, in the Wage and Hour Division. 

Chavez-DeRemer is the most recent member of the Donald Trump Cabinet to be ousted, following former Attorney General Pam Bondi and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

The Department of Labor’s independent watchdog started an investigation into Chavez-DeRemer and her top aides over allegations of sending inappropriate messages to young staffers at the department, according to the New York Times. 

The department’s inspector general was also investigating reports of misuse of department funds for personal travel and into allegations Chavez-DeRemer had an extramarital affair with a member of her security detail.

Separately, her husband, Dr. Shawn DeRemer, was barred from entering the Department of Labor after female staffers said he touched them inappropriately, according to the Times. 

Two right-wing organizations are taking aim at the ban on conversion therapy in Wisconsin’s professional code for social workers, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

But the head of a group that fought for the ban says professional standards are the central issue — and aren’t subject to free speech claims. 

In a joint letter Wisconsin Family Action and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty are demanding that Wisconsin repeal the ban. Conversion therapy is a widely discredited practice purporting to change sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Wisconsin Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling, and Social Work Examining Board included the ban in its updated professional code published in April 2024.

The code declares that it is “unprofessional conduct” for practitioners to use or promote “any intervention or method that has the purpose of attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including attempting to change behaviors or expressions of self or to reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender.”

WILL has been at the center of many conflicts over trans-inclusive policies and gender identity. Wisconsin Family Action has also lobbied against including gender identity in state civil rights protections.

Their letter seeking the conversion therapy ban’s repeal cites a U.S. Supreme Court ruling March 31 in a lawsuit that challenges Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy on First Amendment grounds.

The high court ruling didn’t throw out the Colorado law directly. Instead, it instructed the federal court hearing the Colorado lawsuit to subject that law to “strict scrutiny” on First Amendment grounds because it seeks to “regulate speech based on viewpoint.”

The WILL-Wisconsin Family Action letter, first reported by Wisconsin Health News, was sent April 14 to Gov. Tony Evers, the Department of Safety and Professional Services and the chair of the social work examining board. 

The letter demands that the board stop enforcing the ban and start the process of repealing it. WILL represents a Christian counselor in a pending federal lawsuit to block a La Crosse city ordinance that bans conversion therapy.

Marc Herstand, executive director for the National Association of Social Workers’ Wisconsin chapter, said the U.S. Supreme Court ruling isn’t relevant to the Wisconsin rule.

“I don’t think it applies because we have a rule, and according to state statute, professional boards can create their own ethical standards,” Herstand told the Wisconsin Examiner. That is supported by both the general law that applies to the state’s licensing boards as well as specific provisions authorizing the social worker board, he said.

Herstand said rules against conversion therapy are to prevent harm. He compared the practice to an electrician’s bad advice that leads to a homeowner’s fatal electric shock or a health provider whose bad advice leads a patient with diabetes to lose a limb to nerve damage or the loss of circulation.

“That’s not free speech — that’s unprofessional conduct,” Herstand said. The electrician or health professional “would be held accountable by the [relevant professional] board. Conversion therapy is exactly the same thing.”

Republican lawmakers repeatedly blocked several previous attempts to update Wisconsin’s social work standards. In April 2024, after the Legislature’s session ended, the social work examining board updated its professional standards to restore the conversion therapy ban.

Then, in a landmark state Supreme Court ruling in July 2025, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky wrote that the statutes that state legislators had used to review and suspend administrative rules violated the Wisconsin Constitution. The examining board “exercised its statutory authority” when it revised its rules to ban conversion therapy, Karofsky wrote in the 4-3 decision.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Customs and Border Protection tariff refund system went live Monday, marking what small business advocates call a “complex” first step for entrepreneurs to recoup $166 billion in import taxes accrued under President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in February. 

Importers and brokers can now upload a detailed list of each tariff paid under Trump’s now illegal order to charge duties under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA. 

Customs officials estimate 330,000 importers paid the duties. Refunds are expected within 60 to 90 days, according to CBP.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision earlier this year found Trump’s steep global tariffs exceeded his presidential powers.

Following the high court’s decision, U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Richard Eaton ordered the government to stop charging the tariffs and establish a refund system.

A handful of small businesses and Democratic state attorneys general led the legal challenge to Trump’s 2025 “Liberation Day” tariffs. 

Small business owners angry, frustrated

States Newsroom documented the experiences of several small businesses across the U.S. who faced increased costs following Trump’s change in international trade policy.

Now many are experiencing a “confusing mix of relief,” Richard Trent, executive director of Main Street Alliance, told States Newsroom in an interview Monday.

Trent, whose organization advocates on behalf of small businesses said “our entrepreneurs, many of whom were angry that they had to pay tariffs in the first place, and were frustrated by the back-and-forth over the last year, opened up the portal this morning only to see that it had crashed. It just feels like the uncertainty just keeps popping up.”

Trent, who spoke to “five or six” businesses Monday morning who experienced technical issues, said the portal was up and running again by afternoon.

Customs and Border Protection did not confirm for States Newsroom whether the system had crashed, but rather provided a written statement.

“U.S. Customs and Border Protection has developed a new tool, the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE), to efficiently process refunds, pursuant to court order, for importers and brokers who paid IEEPA duties,” according to an agency spokesperson. 

“CBP has issued guidance to the trade community to help them prepare to use the new CAPE tool. Importers and brokers can visit CBP’s website for resources and step-by-step guidance,” the statement continued. 

Monday’s launch is the first part of a four-step process in refunding the taxes paid by American businesses of all sizes.

Trent said the “complex” process is yet another hurdle for small operations.

“This is progress, but it’s not yet justice,” Trent said in an earlier statement Monday. “Small business owners should not have to jump through hoops to get back money they never should have had to pay. We need a refund process that is simple, accessible, and fast.”

Guides for refunds

The Liberty Justice Center, the libertarian legal advocacy group that represented small business plaintiffs before the Supreme Court, has established the Tariff Equity Refund Resource for America. The platform offers online guides for how to properly submit documentation for the refunds.

“We took this fight all the way to the Supreme Court on behalf of small businesses, and we’re not stopping now,” Sara Albrecht, chair of the Liberty Justice Center, said in a statement Monday. “We are a nonprofit law firm — our only goal is to help businesses recover every dollar they are owed, not to take a percentage of it. At a time when others are looking to profit off confusion, we are making this process clear, accessible and free.”

Trump declared international trade a national emergency just over a year ago, citing a trade imbalance on imports and exports between the United States and several other countries. The president imposed a 10% blanket tariff on all global imports and steeper double-digit taxes on products from some of the top U.S. trading partners.

The president delayed and changed the rates on numerous occasions. 

Following his Supreme Court loss, Trump imposed a new round of universal, temporary tariffs under a separate statute. The Liberty Justice Center is again representing small businesses in court to fight the new import taxes.

Gov. Tony Evers issued two executive orders this month that make the commutation of prison sentences available again in Wisconsin.

Executive Order 287, creating the Governor’s Commutation Advisory Board and Executive Order 288, creating a Juvenile Life Sentence Process, open up new opportunities for people to get out of prison and reestablish their lives in the community. 

A commutation, like a pardon (a type of civil forgiveness with some rights restored), is authorized in the Wisconsin Constitution under the governor’s executive clemency authority. Commutations can shorten terms of incarceration or place applicants on extended supervision, or they may simply push up the date of a parole board meeting, making an applicant eligible for parole sooner. Unlike a pardon, a commutation doesn’t erase the record of the offense.

Nine-month window of opportunity

With Evers leaving office on Jan. 4, the next governor can continue the commutation process, including maintaining the Commutation Advisory Board that holds hearings on commutation applications and makes recommendations to the governor — or the next governor could amend the process or even decide not to offer commutations at all.

Because of Evers’ imminent departure, there is a sense of urgency among people in prison and their advocates to submit commutation applications as soon as possible, before the first commutation hearings are held in June.

In a Substack post, Eau Claire attorney David Carlson, a formerly incarcerated  advocate for people who are leaving prison, wrote about the significance of the executive orders but also a sense of urgency to take advantage of what might be a unique opportunity.

“There are moments in governance when an action is less about its immediate effect and more about what it makes possible,” he wrote. “Governor Tony Evers’s Executive Orders 287 and 288 fall squarely into that category. They do not resolve the issue of excessive incarceration in Wisconsin, nor do they create a permanent commutation system. What they do is create a window, and that window is narrow.”

He noted the commutation board has a “functional runway of approximately nine months.”

“The question is not whether these executive orders are meaningful – they are – but whether Wisconsin will use this time strategically or allow it to pass as another short-lived initiative that never reaches its full potential.”

Carlson encouraged advocates to engage candidates running for the governor’s seat if they “intend to continue, expand or institutionalize this commutation process,” and he also discouraged applicants from waiting until after the November election to apply.

“These are not applications that can be assembled hastily or corrected later,” Carlson wrote. “They must be done correctly the first time and must be started immediately. Individuals seeking commutation must begin now, and advocates must assist in building strong, complete submissions.”

Carlson also notes that the first cases heard before the commutation board are very important because how “the process is perceived” will impact the future of commutations in Wisconsin.

How to apply

On the governor’s online “Commutation Information” page there are commutation applications available for both standard commutations and juvenile life sentence commutations. 

Juvenile commutation is only available to those who were 19 years of age or younger at the time of their conviction. The age of conviction is critical, not the age of the defendant when the offense was charged.

The juvenile commutation is also restricted to those who were sentenced as adults and received a life sentence or 39 years or more of incarceration.

Since 2022, legislation has been introduced but hasn’t gained traction, which would have offered adjustments of sentences for “an individual who committed the crime for which the individual is being sentenced before he or she turned 18 years old,” but was charged as an adult. That legislation would have allowed those who had not been involved in a death to apply for an adjustment at the 15th year of  incarceration, and for those who had committed a crime involving a death to apply at 20 years.

The proposed legislation and Executive Order 288 both reflect the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Miller vs. Alabama, that a sentence of life without parole for a juvenile is unconstitutional, recognizing mitigating factors for youth due to both intellectual and emotional development.

The eligibility requirements for the two commutation applications share five specific conditions:

1. Applicants must currently  be incarcerated in a correctional institution for a Wisconsin conviction with more than one year of the incarceration term remaining.
2. They must have served at least half of their incarceration term or at least 20 years of a life sentence.
3. They must not have any unresolved criminal charges or outstanding warrants in any jurisdiction.
4. There cannot be any  incidents of violent misconduct within the last five years of current incarceration.
5. The commutation is not for any of the following offenses:

* Sexual assault.

* Physical abuse of a child.

* Trafficking of a child.

* Incest.

* Soliciting a child for prostitution.

An additional condition for the general commutation application requires the applicant not to be serving a sentence for “a sex offense or be required to register as a sex offender (either currently or upon release).”

Commutation applicants are encouraged to obtain assistance, and the application even lists three organizations that provide free or low-cost services: Legal Action of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Justice Center, and Legal Assistance to Incarcerated People Project.

Rachel Fox Armstrong of Legal Action of Wisconsin, said her office has been “inundated by calls for assistance” since the governor issued his orders.

“Unfortunately, our limited resources mean we will only be able to help a very small portion of those who call us for assistance with commutation,” she said. “This process is new and developing. We know that the legal community, advocacy groups, the Department of Corrections, and the Evers administration will need to work together to ensure that the many excellent clemency candidates are able to have their applications submitted and thoughtfully considered.”

Questions about the process

During a Saturday, April 11, webinar conducted by the nonprofit group Forward Justice Wisconsin on commutations, participants expressed concern about how “violent misconduct” or “violent behavior “ should be defined for the purpose of the application. 

Another question addressed the requirement that certified copies of each criminal case, including sentencing transcripts, be obtained and submitted, but people confined to prison in Wisconsin must have their legal mail copied and the original destroyed. That raises the question: If  the original is destroyed, how can the certification be preserved?

Other concerns raised included:

*Older cases where there might not be any certified records available.

* Challenging why a question about  “any other interactions with law enforcement” is relevant, as well as “prior arrest that did not lead to charges, deferred judgments, criminal charges that were later dropped or dismissed, or instances where you have been the subject of criminal investigations.”

*Whether a restraining order that was later dismissed should be required to be disclosed.

Issues raised in the April 11 webinar were forwarded by the Wisconsin Examiner to the Governor’s Commutation Advisory Board for a response, but none were available at the time of publication.

Notifying the courts and victims

Three weeks before a commutation hearing, each applicant must provide a notice to the circuit court and the district attorney’s office of the court where offenses were processed. The chair of the Commutation Board can, at his or her own discretion, forward an application directly to the governor without a “non-binding recommendation and without a hearing or any executive action of the board. 

Applicants are also “strongly encouraged” to provide a copy of the application to the clerk of courts and the DA.

At the April 11 webinar, participants suggested that applicants make four sets of each application: the original for the commutation board, a copy for the applicant, a copy for the circuit court judge who heard their case and another for the DA.

All these copies of the commutation application raise another issue: the cost of just obtaining the original certified documents, supporting documents, the application form and copies. Brittany Lee, one of the webinar presenters, noted that certified court documents alone could cost between $60 and $200.

The executive orders also require victim notification, but that is the responsibility of the governor’s office, at the “discretion and direction” of the commutation board and the Office of Victim Services and Programs. “Reasonable attempts” should be made to publish a notice three weeks before the hearing to be published in newspapers in the county where the offenses were committed.

The staff reviewing the commutation application will also collect additional information, perform a background check, and may seek “additional input from the judge, district attorney, defense attorney, and victims”.

According to the application, the review of each submission may take over a year to complete.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Republican lawmakers want a lawsuit challenging the state’s school funding formula as unconstitutional dismissed, according to court filings. 

The lawsuit challenging Wisconsin’s current school funding system was filed in February by Law Forward, a public interest law firm, in Eau Claire Circuit Court. The progressive legal group filed it on behalf of a group of school districts, parents, teachers, students and two advocacy organizations, the Wisconsin PTA and the Wisconsin Public Education Network (WPEN). The suit argues that the state Legislature is not fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide a “sound basic education” under the current school funding formula.

GOP lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) and members of the Joint Finance Committee, called the lawsuit “meritless” in their filing and said that the majority of questions asked in the lawsuit have been previously answered in previous court cases, including in the state Supreme Court’s Vince v. Voight decision. That 2000 lawsuit found that the state’s school funding formula was constitutional. 

“For all of plaintiffs’ sky-is-falling assertions, the school finance system that plaintiffs challenge here is the same system that the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld against similar (indeed, mostly identical) constitutional claims in Vincent v. Voight,” the filing states. “That system, Vincent explained, complies with the Wisconsin Constitution because it affords every student the opportunity to obtain a constitutionally adequate education. The Supreme Court reached this conclusion notwithstanding various complaints relating to test scores, school facilities, teacher staffing, and the like — complaints that are materially indistinguishable from those that Plaintiffs raise here.”

The lawmakers said the plaintiffs in the suit are asking the judiciary to take over the Legislature’s constitutional role in determining funding for primary and secondary education, even as the Legislature has fulfilled its constitutional responsibilities by enacting a comprehensive school finance system for the state’s public schools. 

The new lawsuit argues that declines in student proficiency for Wisconsin’s reading and math test scores are the result of declining investments in schools. It also argues that the growth of the state’s school voucher programs, which use state money to cover the cost of private school tuition, have contributed to declining funding for Wisconsin public schools.

The lawsuit asks the court for a declaration that the Legislature hasn’t fulfilled and cannot “shirk” its constitutional obligation to fund schools at a sufficiently high level to “ensure that every Wisconsin student has an equal opportunity to obtain a sound basic education that equips them for their roles as citizens and enables them to succeed economically and personally in a tuition free public school where the character of instruction is as uniform as practicable.” It calls for the current funding system to be ruled invalid.

Jeff Mandell, co-founder of Law Forward, called the motion to dismiss a “predictable attempt to avoid accountability” in a statement.

“We filed this lawsuit because families, educators, and communities across Wisconsin are seeing firsthand that the current system is not meeting that promise — forcing schools to rely on referendums, widening inequities, and leaving too many students without the resources they need,” Mandell said. “We maintain that this case deserves to be heard and are confident that the court will agree.”

The lawmakers also argue in the filing that the five school districts named in the suit, including the Adams-Friendship Area School District, the School District of Beloit, the Eau Claire Area School District, the Green Bay Area Public School District and the Necedah Area School District, should be dismissed from the case, arguing that they lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of the school finance system as a political subdivision of the state.

The lawmakers argue that the issues the plaintiffs pointed to in the lawsuit are not sufficient evidence of the state not upholding its constitutional obligation.

The lawsuit specifically points to the increasing reliance of Wisconsin school districts on asking voters to help them keep up with operating costs by increasing local property taxes through ballot measures (with varying results) as well as the decline in the state’s special education reimbursement rate.

The state currently picks up a little more than one-third of special education costs, despite the state budget promising to cover 42% of costs this year. The Necedah Area School District, which recently failed to pass a  referendum in April, has diverted all of its revenue from its previous operational referendum requests, about $6.6 million, to its special education fund. Meanwhile, the special education reimbursement rate for private voucher schools is 90%. 

“The Wisconsin Constitution makes clear that localities are expected to cover a significant portion of the cost of funding public schools,” the Republicans’ filing states. “That some school districts have had to use some of their own general education funds to cover the costs of special education is not constitutionally significant in the absence of any plausible allegations that any student has been deprived of the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education. And as for districts’ need to use referenda to exceed the revenue limits here, this too is constitutionally irrelevant.” 

The Legislature appropriated more than $7 billion in school aid in the 2024–25 fiscal year, the Republican filing noted. 

Democratic lawmakers on the Joint Finance Committee submitted their own filing, which was supportive of the lawsuit. 

“A constitutional promise is not optional,” the lawmakers wrote. “Wisconsin children cannot receive one level of educational opportunity in communities that can raise and pass local referenda and another in communities that cannot.”

The lawsuit also lays out how the state’s private-school choice system, which was launched in the 1990s and has grown exponentially over the years, has contributed to the erosion in  funding for public schools. There are four distinct school voucher programs in the state: the Wisconsin Parental Choice Program, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, the Racine Parental Choice Program and the Special Needs Scholarship Program. Wisconsin is paying about $700 million this year for more than 60,000 students to participate in the voucher programs.

Republican lawmakers rejected the assertion that the choice programs are related to the lawsuit’s claims.

“This is a baseless attempt to tar these longstanding, alternative educational offerings that are both highly effective and extremely popular across the State,” the lawmakers stated. 

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty on behalf of parents and School Choice Wisconsin Action are also seeking to intervene in the case as are parents represented by EdChoice Legal Advocates, a school choice litigation firm.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Clouds of tear gas engulfed the Ridglan Farms Biomedical research facility, as police repelled hundreds of animal rights activists attempting to breach the facility to carry away  thousands of beagles bred and housed inside. The activists gathered at Ridglan in the Dane County village of Blue Mounds on Saturday, a day ahead of the date  they’d publicly announced for the planned rescue action. 

Wayne Hsiung, a lawyer and animal rights activist from California who was one of the lead organizers of the action, was reportedly among the first people arrested. The Dane County Sheriff’s Office said on social media that he was arrested “within minutes” for conspiracy to commit burglary. As the activists attempted to enter the Ridglan facility for the second time in a little over a month, they were met with tear gas and rubber bullets. Activists  said some people  were severely beaten by law enforcement. One participant, Nicholas Dickman, lost multiple teeth after officers beat him after Dickman crawled through a hole activists made in the  fence around the facility, according to a press release prepared by the Coalition to Save the Ridglan Dogs. 

The conflict comes after weeks of escalating tensions around the controversial facility. Ridglan keeps thousands of beagle dogs bred specifically to be used in biomedical research. Ridglan maintains its own research wing, but also sells the dogs to other facilities for use in experiments. Critics of Ridglan have long accused the facility of subjecting the dogs to cruel and inhumane conditions. Last year, a special prosecutor appointed by a Dane County judge found that violations of Wisconsin’s animal cruelty laws had occurred at Ridglan. Instead of filing charges, the special prosecutor reached a settlement deal with Ridglan that gave the company until July to shut down its breeding operation. 

Animal rights advocates denounced the decision to let the beagles remain at Ridglan until July. This prompted a first attempted rescue by dozens of activists in March. More than 20 beagles were taken from the facility and  some were adopted. A few of the dogs were intercepted by police and returned to Ridglan. The group forced its way into the buildings housing the dogs, breaching fences and breaking locks. Some of the activists reported that the dogs they pulled from gated enclosures were living in cramped and unsanitary conditions. Although 27 people were arrested, Dane County Sheriff Kalvin Barrett didn’t refer charges to the district attorney’s office until last Thursday, after the activists announced their plans to return to try to get more beagles out. Barrett called the activists “outside groups” who used violence to breach the buildings and “stole dogs from the facility.”

On Saturday, at least 25 people were arrested, a coalition spokesperson said in an email statement to the Wisconsin Examiner. Two people have been charged with tresspassing, one with reckless driving, and four with felony burglary. Hsiung reportedly said in a call from jail that “only a deeply corrupt system will use tear gas and rubber bullets against peaceful activists saving dogs. We are seeing the worst in humanity today. But in the courage of the rescuers, also the best.” The coalition  said in a statement that Hsiung was questioned by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. The FBI refused to comment for this article. 

The Dane County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement on social media that a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) had been used to warn people that they’d be arrested. The statement said  that hundreds of people attempted to breach the gate, while others “blocked roadways to slow the response of law enforcement and other emergency vehicles.” It also said that one of the activists reckless drove a vehicle around the property before “law enforcement stopped it and arrested the driver.” 

The sheriff’s office also said  that some protesters were peaceful while others ignored warnings and attempted to break into the facility, and that 40mm munitions (tear gas) and pepper balls were used. Dane County deputies were assisted by other law enforcement agencies, though the sheriff’s office  did not name them in its statement. 

Sheriff Barrett said that “it was clear from the beginning that this was not going to be a peaceful protest.” Barrett said the use of force was “appropriate and proportionate to the behaviors observed” and that “resorting to crime, chaos, and violence is not the solution.”

The sheriff’s post included pictures of activists dressed in white biohazard suits, carrying equipment like sledgehammers and power saws to breach the facility. 

Lisa Castagnozzi, a resident of Milwaukee County who participated in the action, told the Examiner that she’d been concerned about Ridglan for at least eight years, ever since she read about the facility’s 311 animal cruelty violations cited by the state, “and yet, they just keep reporting these violations and nothing ever happens.” 

“So everyone — myself included — have tried over eight or nine years now, for me eight, all of the legal channels. You know?” Castagnozzi said. “All the advocacy channels. Going to hearings. Signing petitions. Calling our Congress people. Going to Madison to talk to people at [the state Department of Agriculture and Trade], U.S.D.A., meeting with legislators, being part of Dane4Dogs…I mean literally trying to get any of the four major authorities in Wisconsin to take action. Like we know that there’s cruelty there. Why is no one taking action?”

In frustration, Castagnozzi said she and many others decided to go to Ridglan on Saturday. Originally, the second action was announced for Sunday, and Castagnozzi said that she, like many others, was surprised that the action was moved up a day to Saturday. When they arrived at Ridglan, Castagnozzi said she saw what she thought was smoke in the air as the police fired tear gas and people tried  to get through the gates. Castagnozzi’s team decided to keep their distance, and then people started coming down the hill towards them with injuries. 

One man, she said, “had been pepper-sprayed in the eyes, like brutally. And then from that moment on, for the rest of the day, for me…my team was scattered and there’s so many people and chaos. …  people were shot with rubber bullets. People went to the hospital. Knee injuries. A professor from Sheboygan I know, she was shot in the chest and she had to go to the hospital and make sure it wasn’t a broken rib. A lot of injuries, and tons of people with serious chemical, you know, in the eyes, in the face, in the skin, in their lungs, I mean people were just passing out.”

Castagnozzi also said that she saw people who identified themselves as neighbors and supporters of Ridglan blocking roads with their vehicles and not allowing people to pass. 

On Sunday, sheriff’s deputies were still in the area blocking a road to Ridglan and monitoring passing cars. A planned vigil was not held at the farm. Instead, dozens of activists gathered at the Capitol, saying they would not give up on freeing Ridglan’s beagles.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Wisconsin Department of Corrections is making progress on creating a program allowing incarcerated mothers who meet certain requirements to keep physical custody of their babies, the agency argued in court filings in early April. 

Over a year ago, Judge Stephen Ehlke required the Department of Corrections to begin considering women in state prisons for mother-young child programming without delay. 

Lawyers for two formerly incarcerated women argued in February that there had been no meaningful progress in the 11 months since the judge ordered the department to establish the program. They argued that the court should impose sanctions, including a daily fine. 

The department said it wants to have a program that would allow incarcerated women to live with their babies within prison walls, but that it is “currently impossible” to set up such a program in the existing prison system. The DOC cited a lack of sufficient funding from the state Legislature and overcrowding in women’s prisons. 

In its court filings, the agency argued that it has complied with the order by pursuing a program that would involve housing incarcerated women in the community but with some of the same restrictions they would face in prison.

Lawyers for the women from the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin and Quarles & Brady LLP haven’t filed a reply to the DOC yet. In an interview with the Examiner on April 10, Wisconsin ACLU Legal Director Ryan Cox said the DOC hasn’t complied with the court order. 

The ACLU’s position is that the department intends to “hide behind the Legislature,” Cox said. 

He said the court can fix the problem by fining the government “until it’s clear to the Legislature that they will be spending more money in sanctions than it would cost to just pass a bill to fix the problem overall.”

Cox said that the agency has said the criteria for its potential program is too restrictive for any person in DOC custody to currently qualify. 

In its filings, DOC said it is aware of one woman who is likely to become eligible in May of this year, and that additional women could become eligible in the future. 

In 2025, 14 mothers gave birth while in the custody of the Wisconsin Women’s Correctional System, DOC communications director Beth Hardtke said in an email to the Examiner. 

The case hinges on a 1991 law that requires the department to create a mother-young child care program that allows women in the correctional system to keep physical custody of their children while they participate. A woman may enter the program if the department approves and she is either pregnant or has a child less than 1 year old. 

Nine states have prison nursery programs, and others are considering or developing a program, Stateline reported in January. 

Last year, Ehlke agreed with the plaintiffs that incarcerated women had to be considered. He rejected the Department of Corrections’ argument that the agency’s existing program for mothers on probation, parole or extended supervision was enough to satisfy the law. 

Plaintiffs Alyssa Puphal and Natasha Curtin-Weber were incarcerated women who wanted to participate, according to the initial complaint filed in June 2024. Both women have since been released from prison. 

DOC pursuing ‘creative solution’

No DOC prisons can support housing infants, and the agency’s budget doesn’t have extra money to build a new facility for the program, the DOC argued. 

The agency said it likely could have created a “more robust” mother-young child program for prisoners if it had the necessary funding, and should not be held in contempt because any shortcoming on its part was not intentional. 

The DOC said it “would have been in no one’s best interest for Corrections to have simply started housing infants in prisons that were not equipped to safely house them.” 

The department said it is actively working with Meta House, a nonprofit that helps women recover from addiction. Meta House is one of the facilities that currently houses the DOC’s mother-young child program for women on correctional supervision in the community, the DOC said, and the department is working with Meta House to enable it to house eligible incarcerated people. 

In April 3 court filings, Daniel Cromwell, an assistant administrator for adult prisons for the DOC, said that a draft policy regarding the program is expected to become final and effective within a few weeks. After the policy is final, the final contract with Meta House will go through a DOC process for approval and signature, according to the department. 

ACLU: Too many women left out  

While Cox thinks women should have to meet some requirements to participate, he thinks the agency’s criteria are too restrictive. 

In its court filings, the department said that its plan with Meta House also relies on another state law: Wisconsin statute 301.046. An incarcerated woman would have to meet the criteria for that law and the mother-child law to participate. 

The law allows prisoners who meet certain requirements to be confined where they live or in other places in the community assigned by the department, the DOC said. 

The law requires the department to keep track of these incarcerated people by electronic monitoring or keeping them in supervised places. Laws that apply to incarcerated people in other correctional institutions still apply to them. The DOC can allow them to leave confinement for activities like employment and education, but it’s unclear whether the agency will permit this.

The DOC said that women placed in the community under this statute are legally considered “prisoners,” and that in this way, the department would meet its responsibility to provide a mother-child program to prisoners. 

Cox said that “we’re still trying to understand” the specifics of the criteria for the community confinement law that the DOC laid out in its court filings, but he contends that it is overly restrictive and doesn’t obey the court order. 

If the program was in one of its women’s prisons or a new facility built for that purpose, the agency might not have included this criteria. However, the department argued that it doesn’t have the resources needed for that. 

Cox also said that the department is trying to confuse the question of who is currently a prisoner, and that the goal of the women’s lawsuit and the court’s order is to provide a program to women who are currently incarcerated.

A drafted DOC policy includes a list of requirements incarcerated women would need to meet. Women convicted of offenses such as homicide or a crime against a child, or who are not classified as minimum custody or minimum community custody, would not qualify. 

Other requirements involve each woman’s behavior while in prison and jail and whether she has actively engaged in parenting classes. Child welfare must have approved or coordinated a safe reunification between the mother and the child, and the woman must have a stable housing and child care plan in place, among other requirements. 

Juli Bliefnick of FREE, an advocacy group focused on the justice system’s impact on women, expressed concern about what criteria the DOC will require women to meet. She said that historically, the department’s discretion limits access to programs, rather than expanding access. 

“And the human cost of excluding mothers and babies from this opportunity to form those critical bonds cannot be understated,” Bliefnick said in a message to the Examiner. 

Request for sanctions

Lawyers for the women requested sanctions, including a daily fine that would accumulate over time. They asked for the money from the fine to be set aside for the mother-child program. 

The DOC argued that it isn’t in contempt of the court order, that Wisconsin law does not allow for money from such a fine to be set aside for that purpose and that the plaintiffs haven’t provided necessary evidence for the court to hold a hearing on contempt. 

DOC’s lack of funding

Wisconsin’s budget includes $198,000 per year for the mother-child program. That’s not enough to construct a new building, and the DOC budget lacks money that could be used to do so, the agency argued. 

According to the DOC, the state Legislature has not provided additional funding despite proposals in the 2025-2027 budget process.

Joint Finance Committee co-chairs Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) and Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green), as well as several of the other Republican members of the committee, did not respond to requests for comment from the Examiner.

The DOC said it’s still seeking legislative support for more money but has no “imminent” way to get the money needed to construct a new building to house a mother-child program. 

According to the department’s filings, the $198,000 per year is used by its Maternal and Infant Program, the department’s program for women on supervision. In addition, the department traditionally spends another $400,000 to $500,000 per year on that program. 

The Maternal and Infant Program reportedly offers ten single-occupancy rooms available for women on supervision to live with their babies. The department said it contracts with ARC Community Services, Inc. to administer the program.

Women take part in the program for approximately six months at a time, the department said. In 2024, about 25 women were referred for the program, with 11 admitted and six successfully completing the program.

‘A critical step’ 

The advocacy group FREE said it is working with partners like the Ostara Initiative to develop community-based alternatives that meet the requirements of statute while advancing their goal of ending the immediate separation of newborns and incarcerated mothers. 

“This is a critical step toward eliminating jail and prison births in our state, and we invite community members to join us in this work,” FREE said. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Some of the Trump administration’s controversial new warehouse immigration detention centers are getting scaled back and postponed as states and cities fight back and new Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin reviews actions taken by his ousted predecessor, Kristi Noem.

Some states and cities have seen more communication and compromise as Mullin takes over and the Department of Homeland Security faces a continued funding shutdown that has reached 60 days.

That includes discussions about a proposed Arizona detention center where DHS agreed to scale back the number of prisoners by two-thirds and pay a city for lost taxes, and a proposed center in Maryland with a similar offer from the department. A lawsuit also is holding up work on that detention center. And in Georgia, a small city cut off the water supply to a proposed immigrant holding site.

A plan to house up to 1,500 immigrants in Surprise, Arizona, starting as soon as May was scaled back to 542 detainees starting in October at the earliest, and DHS agreed to pay the city $300,000 a year for lost property taxes. The department also may offer more to help with any police costs, after negotiations with DHS under Mullin.

“With the new leadership there’s been a lot of communication,” Surprise Mayor Kevin Sartor told a local radio show April 15, a contrast to the “very frustrating” experience of how the city learned from news reports in January that DHS had purchased a 418,000-square-foot distribution center for $70 million.   

“We do have a different leadership style,” Mullin said in a CNBC interview April 16, comparing himself to Noem. “We want to make sure people understand that we’re here working for the people, not against you.” 

In Maryland, the new DHS administration has also offered a scale-back from 1,500 detainees to 542, in a Williamsport warehouse bought for $102 million in January. An April 15 court order keeps most work on the center paused as the state continues a lawsuit claiming “impacts on the environmental, economic, and public health and safety interests of the state.”

In Arizona, dozens of Democratic state lawmakers sent a letter in April asking the city of Surprise to “stop the facility from opening at all costs,” but Mayor Sartor has said he doesn’t see a legal basis for a lawsuit. The mayor’s office is nonpartisan, but Republicans predominate among registered voters in the city by almost 2-1 over Democrats. 

Communities across the country are facing the results of a massive detention expansion fueled in large part by the record $45 billion approved for increased immigration detention by Congress last summer.

U.S. Reps. Maxwell Frost & Darren Soto tell Kristi Noem not to open ICE facility in Central Florida

Other state and local action on the plan to repurpose warehouses for detention centers include a Kansas City, Missouri, ban on nonmunicipal detention facilities passed in January, Developers halted the sale of a south Kansas City warehouse in February.

Owners of an Indiana warehouse sent a letter saying they weren’t in active negotiations with for the site, which had been reported as a potential detention center and drew local opposition from the town of Merrillville. Democratic lawmakers in Florida opposed plans for a warehouse detention center near Orlando in February, while some Republican lawmakers supported it. 

In Georgia, the city of Social Circle cut off water and sewer service for a $128.6 million warehouse proposed to hold 10,000 detainees, saying the town of 5,000 people did not have the capacity to serve it.

“The city’s infrastructure cannot accommodate this level of demand,” according to a February statement from the city, despite a “certainly creative” solution suggested by DHS to fill a water-supply cistern at times of low demand.  

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

The National Guard’s top general told Congress on Friday that it would follow the Constitution and the law when he was asked about the possibility President Donald Trump would order troops to polling places for the midterm elections.

The remarks at a U.S. House Appropriations subcommittee hearing came as Democratic lawmakers also voiced unease over the continuing deployment of nearly 2,500 National Guard members in Washington, D.C.

Rep. Joe Morelle, a New York Democrat, asked Gen. Steven Nordhaus, chief of the National Guard Bureau, what assurances he could provide to Americans concerned about the deployment of troops at the polls. 

“The National Guard, obviously, always follows the Constitution, law, policy and guidance, both at the federal and the state level,” Nordhaus said.

Federal law prohibits the deployment of the military to polling places unless necessary “to repel armed enemies of the United States” and violations are punishable by up to five years in prison.

Trump has said that he should have ordered the National Guard to seize ballot boxes during the 2020 election, which he falsely maintains was stolen. Steve Bannnon, a former Trump adviser, has publicly urged the president to send the military and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents to patrol the polls.

Trump last year deployed National Guard members to several Democratic-led cities, in some instances federalizing them against the will of governors, who typically command National Guard members. He also sent active-duty Marines into Los Angeles. Opponents of the deployments expressed fears that they represented a test run for intimidating voters.

While the deployment to the District of Columbia continues, Trump withdrew troops from other cities after the Supreme Court in December left in place a lower court decision barring a deployment in Chicago.

Rep. Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat, questioned how long the D.C. deployment is sustainable. She also referred to reporting by ABC News that the Pentagon intends to keep troops in D.C. through the end of Trump’s term in January 2029.

“Picking up waste in the District of Columbia does not prepare anyone for conflicts that could arise in Europe, Asia and the Middle East,” McCollum said.

WASHINGTON — Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s legal team is urging a federal appeals court to uphold a ruling that allows the former Navy captain to keep his retirement rank and pay while his First Amendment case against the Pentagon moves forward. 

Benjamin C. Mizer, partner at Arnold & Porter, wrote in a brief filed April 15 that the Defense Department violated Kelly’s constitutional rights when it tried to punish him for appearing alongside other Democrats in the “Don’t Give Up The Ship” video. 

The Trump administration’s appeal of the district court’s ruling, he wrote, doesn’t cite “a single case” that has expanded the limited speech rights of active-duty military members to “retirees like Senator Kelly.”

The legal precedent the Trump administration did reference, Parker v. Levy, “involved an active-duty officer directly urging soldiers at his wartime military post to refuse specific orders to deploy and fight,” Mizer wrote. 

“Senator Kelly, by contrast, is a retired officer and legislator who publicly called, alongside other Members of Congress, for adherence to settled law, not defiance of it,” Mizer wrote. 

‘Illegal orders’ video posted in November

Kelly, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, and Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, all Democrats with backgrounds in the military or national security, posted the video at the center of the case on Nov. 18.

They said that Americans in those institutions “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.”

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

Mizer wrote in his legal brief that “Kelly never told members of the armed forces to refuse any particular military orders. The video did not even identify any specific military orders or operations.”

Mizer added the obligation to refuse clearly illegal orders “is a bedrock of the law of armed conflict.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in January that he would attempt to downgrade Kelly’s retirement rank and pay for his participation in the video, leading the senator to file a lawsuit. 

Senior Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia District Court issued a preliminary injunction in February, blocking that from taking effect while the case progresses through the legal system. 

The Trump administration appealed the preliminary injunction to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has scheduled oral arguments for May 7.

Karen LeCraft Henderson, nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1990; Cornelia T.L. Pillard, nominated by President Barack Obama in 2013; and Florence Y. Pan, nominated by President Joe Biden in 2022, make up the three-judge panel that will decide whether to uphold the district court’s preliminary injunction or overturn it. 

DOJ argues discipline at risk

Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate wrote in a 71-page brief filed March 20 the district court judge’s ruling “was gravely wrong and sweeps far beyond Kelly’s suit, calling into question the military’s ability to maintain discipline among servicemembers.”

Shumate added later in the filing that “while retired officers may well have greater speech rights than active-duty servicemembers in some respects, the district court erred in holding that they are indistinguishable from civilians for purposes of First Amendment analysis. 

“The court reasoned that retired officers cannot undermine discipline as significantly as active-duty servicemembers, but that conclusion is unsupportable.”

Shumate contended that the “district court also erred insofar as it suggested that Kelly is entitled to heightened First Amendment protection because he is a Member of Congress. Whatever enhanced speech rights Kelly has in that capacity, they come from other constitutional provisions, not the First Amendment.”

“If anything, Kelly’s role in Congress provides more, not less, reason to hold him as accountable as other servicemembers for counseling disobedience to lawful orders, given that his ‘leadership position’ as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee gives him ‘unique sway over the military,’” Shumate wrote. 

During a nearly four-hour hearing Thursday at the Bayfield County Courthouse in the city of Washburn, Wisconsin, Bayfield County Circuit Judge John Anderson consistently pressed lawyers petitioning for and against a stay or stoppage of work to reroute the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline in northern Wisconsin on the standard he should use in determining the likelihood of success of a judicial review.

Environmental groups and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians have applied for a stay of the Enbridge project based on their petition for review of an administrative court judge’s decision in February to approve permits to go forward with a 41-mile pipeline project. The plan is to reroute the pipeline around the Bad River reservation, after a court finding that the existing pipeline is illegally trespassing on tribal land.

Pipeline opponents argued that the judicial review would ultimately be successful, in part because the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had inappropriately applied a state statute governing navigable waterways, and that ongoing pipeline work before the review is completed would result in irreversible harm. Even though the new route does not cross the reservation, it endangers water that the tribe depends on, Bad River representatives and environmental groups argue.

The legal counsel for the DNR and Enbridge pushed back, noting that there had been extensive work and public scrutiny of Enbridge’s permit application, and that there wasn’t a high likelihood of the judicial review succeeding.

Judge Anderson said after he received briefs from all parties by April 27, he will decide on the stay, depending on whether he is “convinced” the judicial review would “not go further.”

He framed his future decision on the negative chances of the review.

Arguments for the stay

“The Band has a significant interest,” said John Petoskey, an Earthjustice attorney representing Bad River. “It has an interdependent relationship, and it’s the only homeland it has ever had. The natural landscape is far more than a resource. It’s a way of life. That way of life requires a sustainable environment. It’s undisputed that the project will cause an impact.”

Judge Anderson questioned how to determine “irreparable” or “irreversible” damage.

Petoskey responded that destroying a wetland that has not been damaged in 100 years would mean the area will never be the same.

“When wetlands are destroyed, they don’t clean water or control floods and no longer provide services that help the tribe,” he said.

Petoskey also said the reroute will create a “belt” of restricted area around the reservation, where if tribal members go, they could be charged with a felony. However, later, Enbridge lawyer Eric Maassen, said Enbridge would recognize the rights of all tribal members who had a legal right to be on the land.

Robert Lee, representing the Sierra Club, League of Women Voters and 350 Wisconsin, expressed concern about at least 72 waterways the pipeline is supposed to cross.

He argued that under statute 30.12, only the riparian owners (landowners whose property adjoins or contains a natural waterway, and who therefore have the right to reasonable use of the water) can apply for permits for the waterways, and noted that Enbridge is not the riparian owner but a “co-applicant” with the riparian owners.

“Enbridge has the ability to acquire land,” he said, adding that all the company had obtained were easements with property owners.

“Under our view, that is unlawful if they are not the riparian owner,” he said.

Lee also noted that Enbridge had not been specific about what and where it would remove substances from navigable waters, and said under statute 30.20 the DNR had to know specifically what is to be removed to make a decision on a permit. He also noted that Enbridge said some bedrock would be destroyed but wasn’t specific where that would occur.

“If they don’t know the waters where blasting is to take place then public interest is not met,” he said.

Representing Clean Wisconsin, Evan Feinauer said, “They can’t build a pipeline and not do irreparable harm.”

Judge Anderson responded, “Can’t you say that about any project? Where is the line?

Feinauer responded, “Environmental resources will never be the same, even under the best-case scenario.”

Feinauer claimed the DNR didn’t have all the information in front of it when it issued permits, and Judge Anderson asked, “Whose fault was that?” Feinauer said Enbridge didn’t provide needed information on all the potential waterway crossings, including wetlands Enbridge had failed to include in its project proposal.

“I can’t think of a more important question than which wetlands,” said Feinauer.

Arguments against the stay

DNR counsel Gabe Johnson-Karp  said the factors Judge Anderson should consider in issuing a stay are “irrevocable harm” and “success on the merits” of winning the judicial review.  

“I have to consider the likelihood of success,” said Judge Anderson. “How do I do that if I don’t have the record yet?”  Anderson added that he does not intend to read all 113,000 pages of submitted documents.

Johnson-Karp also said the petitioners had failed to provide a “factual showing” of harm and had only addressed a “generalized harm.”

Anderson asked why the parties were even in court if four major waterway permits had not yet been issued. Johnson-Karp acknowledged a lot more work on the pipeline could be done before the four permits are issued.

Regarding the right to cross a navigable waterway and whether the application is solely the riparian owner’s responsibility, Johnson-Karp said the DNR has had a consistent practice of using a “co-applicant approach,” such as Enbridge is using, where Enbridge has an easement with owners.

Maassen also noted there were only four permits being pursued on the project, and he anticipated that they would be opposed.

Maassen said Enbridge has a “high confidence” it could lawfully work on the permit sites, and added, “Just because there are wetlands and forest doesn’t mean you don’t do infrastructure.”

If a three-month stay were issued, Maassen said, in actuality, it would be more likely to delay the project by six months as workers who had been assigned to the project would have left and more time would be needed to hire others.

Maassen also argued that Enbridge didn’t need to be the riparian owner on property it would only be working on in some cases for 24-48 hours.

And he contested the characterization that the blasting of bedrock is not in the public interest as a “woeful miscategorization.”

“If they can’t convince me there is a likelihood on the merits, does it end there?” Judge Anderson asked Maassen about the success of the judicial review and the request for a stay, and Maassen responded, “It does.”

Maassen added that if the pipeline didn’t proceed, it would increase the “threat to energy security” and place up to 700 union jobs at risk.

He also noted that there is a stay of a judgment in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for Enbridge to stop using the existing Line 5 on the reservation by June 16. If  that judgement does not remain stayed, he said, it could negatively impact 10 refineries and cut off most of the propane supply for Michigan.

“There are no alternatives to this line,” said Maassen. “Some refineries will have to shut down, resulting in hundreds of millions of losses.

Lastly, Maassen said Enbridge is also requesting that the petitioners post a $49 million bond if a stay is ordered and Enbridge incurs a loss from the delay.

Petoskey, the Bad River lawyer, said the court did not have to consider economic factors when making decisions about wetlands, and he also noted courts have rejected requests for a bond when the litigants are seeking to protect environmental resources.

Lee, arguing for the Sierra Club, said the court has a responsibility to follow the “letter of the law to have riparian ownership,” and challenged the DNR’s use of “co-applicants” as a “made-up” application of the statute.

Asked by Anderson on the standard of success to be used in issuing a stay, Lee responded, “50-50 probability of success; that is sufficient.”

“I don’t think there is a reasonable likelihood of success,” countered Johnson-Karp on the chance the judicial appeal would succeed.

Anderson asked why Enbridge shouldn’t be the riparian owner or require Enbridge to buy the land? Maassen responded, “The whole notion that being a co-applicant is inappropriate I think is a bad argument.”

Anderson asked all the lawyers to submit briefs within 10 days, with specific attention on the issues he had raised during the hearing.

This report has been updated to reflect that Anderson is a Bayfield County circuit judge.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

On Sunday, more than 2,000 people plan to enter the Ridglan Farms biomedical research facility to free thousands of beagles bred in Dane County under conditions prosecutors last year said violated state animal cruelty laws. Self-described rescuers from across the country have been preparing for Sunday’s non-violent direct action, building on the momentum that started with a smaller rescue last month. 

Wayne Hsiung, an attorney and organizer of the rescues, posted on social media that rescue participants will “use every non-violent means to breach the facility walls and rescue the dogs.” Hsiung continued, “if police illegally attempt to stop us, we will shield one another from their attempts to hurt the dogs, and pressure them to enforce the law and protect the dogs. Nothing will stop us from getting all 2,000 beagles out of cages into the sunlight for the first time.”

In 2024, animal rights groups including Dane4Dogs and the Alliance for Animals filed a court complaint against Ridglan, following years of activism drawing attention to the breeding operation. Ridglan has bred beagles for 60 years to be sold and used in biomedical research, while also maintaining its own research area separate from where the dogs are kept. The controversial but legal experiments are a separate issue from the living conditions of the beagles.

Activists allege that the dogs are being housed inhumanely, had been subjected to the removal of eyelids and vocal cords without anesthesia, and were experiencing deteriorating health as a result. A special prosecutor, La Crosse County District Attorney Tim Gruenke, was appointed after a Dane County judge found that there was probable cause that Ridglan was violating  Wisconsin’s animal cruelty laws. 

Instead of filing criminal charges, Gruenke offered Ridglan a deal that allows the facility to close its breeding operation by July 2026. Gurenke told Fox6 that he didn’t have authority to seize the dogs because the crimes being investigated had occurred in the past. Ridglan has denied the allegations, saying in a statement that “no credible evidence of animal cruelty has ever been presented or substantiated. Nor has any court, agency, or investigator ever made a finding of animal cruelty.”

Ridglan said in a emailed statement to the Examiner that Gruenke’s investigators questioned the credibility of witnesses who distributed claims it said were “misinformation” and “untrue.” Ridglan also said that inspections by the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted from May 2014 to January 2026 found “no non-compliant items” besides a dog with an injured paw in 2017, a request for new flooring in the puppy kennel in 2023, and three separate instances of “paperwork” issues in 2023 and 2026. 

Taking matters into their own hands 

Hsiung organized the first rescue attempt on March 15, an action he said “showed the power of open rescue.” Participants carried  22 beagles out of the facility and drove them away. Eight of the dogs were intercepted by police and returned to Ridglan. 

During the rescue, participants Ingrid Andersson and Jennifer Tourkin say they glimpsed what daily life is like for a Ridglan Farms beagle. The most immediate and overpowering impression they had was from the stench emanating from the long shed buildings housing the dogs, Andersson said. The smell reached the rescuers when they were yards away, having just crossed a field freshly covered with manure. 

“That smelled like, wholesome to me,” Andersson, a midwife in Madison, told the Examiner. “That was nothing. When we got to the sheds where the dogs are kept, it was overpowering stench. It was very, very rank. That was the first thing. And then of course there was the sound.” 

Each long shed, which Andersson compared to the sort used by massive Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO’s), housed about 1,000 dogs, she said. Tourkin, a substitute pre-school teacher and mother from Denver, Colorado, called the sounds echoing from the sheds “profoundly disturbing.” She said, “picture a thousand barking, screaming, suffering beagles running in circles. That’s what it sounded like and I mean…Smells were horrific and it was more than I was prepared for.” Andersson said that the barking and crying must have been yet another stressor for the dogs. “It certainly was for me,” she added. 

As they approached, Tourkin could also hear the sound of the fence being breached. Once the activists got past the fence, it took another 15-20 minutes to actually get into a building. Tourkin was part of a “red team,” or a group willing to get arrested, and was also one of the first people who entered a building that housed dogs. “By the time we came in we could hear alarms, we could hear sirens, so at that point we had to move quickly to save beagles,” she said. 

The activists weren’t hiding from the police, and in fact Hsiung called local law enforcement once they arrived at Ridglan, hoping that officers would assist them in getting the dogs out. While Tourkin and her teammates went inside and retrieved the beagles, Andersson and the others waited outside and helped carry them to vans idling nearby. 

“My own experience in carrying beagles to vans and helping them to freedom was very similar to how I held many laboring mothers in my arms,” said Andersson. “You know, the feeling of a dog melting in my arms really trusting that they were being brought to safety was very clear for me.” Tourkin also said that the dogs “pretty much just melted into our arms.”

Despite Ridglan’s claims that reports of abuse are false, Andersson said she saw dogs with sores on their feet, legs, eyes and ears. Others seemed depressed or shut down. “It was pretty obvious what was going on here, like you didn’t need an expert investigator to tell that these animals were in distress.” She added, “clearly many of them were not used to being held, but there was no resistance.” 

Even wearing biohazard suits, some participants had a difficult time with conditions inside the sheds. Participants said they had difficulty breathing, and the ventilation fans didn’t appear to be working. Enclosures stacked two high and arranged in long rows were filled with dogs inside, some held alone and others in groups. Trays filled with dog droppings rested beneath the enclosures, Andersson said. 

Tourkin recalled carrying one of the beagles to a van as alarms, sirens and a clap of thunder sounded. Tourkin decided on the spot to name the beagle Etta Harriet after her late mother, who would have turned 90 years old this year. “I immediately fell in love with her and looked into her eyes,” said Tourkin. “This beagle puppy just made me think of my mom.” 

As far as Andersson knew, the beagle she carried to the vans made it to safety. Etta Harriet, however, was not so fortunate. She was in a van that was later pulled over by police. Tourkin said that Etta Harriet was one of the eight beagles that were returned to Ridglan. Some of the beagles that made it off the farm have been adopted. Fox6 reported on one of the rescued beagles now named Ivy, who had never seen sunlight since she was born last summer. Instead of a name, Ivy had a code number tattooed inside of her ear. 

Both women said that while law enforcement didn’t assist the rescue as activists hoped, many officers appeared sympathetic to their cause. Andersson said she heard some officers say that they would  be out there if they could. Tourkin, as a member of a red team, said that officers and activists had lengthy and informative conversations. “Many of them didn’t know about the facility until they had arrived there because they were from neighboring communities,” said Tourkin. “And they listened. One of my colleagues saw tears.”

Nevertheless, arrests were made. Jon Frohnmayer, an environmental attorney who answered questions about the arrests, wrote in an email statement to the Examiner on Tuesday that 27 people were arrested during the March action on suspicion of misdemeanor trespass. Most were released hours after booking, while five were kept in jail for more than two days. 

Not everyone was sympathetic. Andersson said that there was at least one person she called a “vigilante” who drove his truck in a “very menacing, threatening way at us,” slashed tires, and confronted activists. Andersson heard that the man may have been an ex-employee. She told the Examiner that he also deserved empathy. 

No charges had been referred to the Dane County district attorney for the March action until Thursday. Dane County Sheriff Kalvin Barrett said in a video statement that 70 charges against 63 people have now been referred to the district attorney’s office. Barrett said that it’s up to the DA whether those people will be charged. Although Barrett said he empathized with people who care about animals and said people may exercise their First Amendment rights, he also described the March action as a violent break-in by “outside groups” which “stole dogs from the facility.” Barrett said that charges had been referred against activists and someone whom the sheriff described as “a nearby neighbor who tried to intervene with the activists.”

Earlier this month, Congressman Mark Pocan responded to Ridglan Farms, after the company requested Pocan’s assistance in repelling the planned action on Sunday. Pocan encouraged the facility to work directly with law enforcement, adding that confronting animal cruelty is an important issue to the congressman, and that the “documented treatment of beagles on your property is alarming.”

Pocan encouraged Ridglan to promptly comply with the ruling of special prosecutors to discontinue their breeding operations. “In addition to my concerns about the ethical treatment of the beagles on your property, I encourage the prioritization of safe rehoming to every beagle possible,” wrote Pocan. “No dog should lack the decency of a safe and loving environment.”

In a statement to the Examiner, Ridglan Farms said that despite the 2025 settlement, it maintains a federal license to continue research, most of which it says benefits dogs by improving veterinary medicine in rabies, canine parvovirus, heart work, dog allergies, dog arthritis, and other ailments. Ridglan also shared video showing dogs housed in gated kennels, arguing that it shows that the dogs are healthy, happy and living in large social groups.

Sunday’s action will mark an escalation, as thousands of people are expected to attend, compared with the dozens who participated in the first rescue action. Frohnmayer said that the activists’ legal team is prepared. “We are expecting a large turnout for the second rescue and have planned accordingly, with expanded jail support, legal resources and coordination with local groups,” he said. “We are prepared to support everyone who chooses to participate, regardless of the scale.”

Returning to Ridglan to get the remaining 2,000 dogs

Participating in the first rescue attempt at Ridglan was a powerful  experience for both Andersson and Tourkin. “That was the best day of my life,” Andersson told the Examiner. “Next to the birth of my son, that was the best day of my life.” Tourkin said, “I’m proud that I’m in a place in my life where I was able to actually do something tangible in this world where I so frequently feel powerless.” 

“I think that Americans have forgotten what citizen action is like,” Andersson added. “It’s not a march at the Capitol. Direct non-violent action is what you do when your legal system, or your health care system, or whatever it is, is broken.” 

The people who participated in the first direct action included vegans and meat eaters, people as young as 18 and some in their 70s. “The experience was transformational to me,” said Tourkin. “These people are the loveliest, most compassionate humans I’ve had the honor to know. And even if there weren’t going to be another rescue, I consider these people my family.” She added, “These aren’t radicals. I wouldn’t have labeled myself an activist. Now, super proud, because what is an activist? Someone who takes action.”

Wisconsin community members and animal welfare activists have been raising the alarm about what they say is Rigland’s abuse for many years, Tourkin said. “And these people have worked tirelessly. So regular people like me have this very short window to get these abused dogs out.”

On Sunday the rescuers will likely encounter more resistance. Since the March action, Ridglan Farms has constructed a barrier around the facility consisting of a ditch hardened by obstacles and wire. Animal rights activists have also captured pictures of masked men dressed in black, which the organizers say are armed security guards hired by Ridglan. 

The Marty Project — an animal rights organization — on Wednesday posted on Facebook the text of an email it says was sent to the Dane County Sheriff’s Office by a former law enforcement officer acting as a liaison between the animal rights group, police and Ridglan. The post claimed that masked men at Ridglan have followed vehicles on public roadways, harassed people, and brandished firearms.

Dane County Executive Melissa Agard on Thursday called for de-escalation at Ridglan Farms, urging demonstrations to remain non-violent and lawful. “This is an emotional issue for many people, and understandably so,” Agard said. “But the path forward must be rooted in respect, safety, and the rule of law. Dane County is at its best when we come together to solve problems, not escalate them.”

Ridglan denied reports of armed masked men acting as security guards near the farm’s property. “No one from Ridglan Farms is doing anything like that,” the company said in a statement emailed to the Examiner. It called the reports “wild claims” by activists “to generate negative coverage of Ridglan Farms and if that has happened to activists or anyone else, they should certainly document it and report it to police immediately.”

Meanwhile, the activists are moving forward with their plan. Andersson said, “there is no limit to the power” of direct action.

Tourkin said,  “I did see true bravery by others, including Ingrid. I carried a dog to safety — to what I thought was safety — and those beings, they’re the focus.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Employees of two Wisconsin mental health clinics, both part of a national mental health nonprofit based in Oconomowoc, will vote next week on whether to join a union after what has become a highly contested campaign.

Almost two months after a four-day National Labor Relations Board hearing, the NLRB’s Minneapolis-based regional director this week ordered the elections at the clinics, operated by Rogers Behavioral Health in West Allis and Madison.

In the April 14 order, Regional Director Jennifer A. Hadsall rejected Rogers’ position that the election should include all 13 Wisconsin Rogers locations. Hadsall instead directed elections at the West Allis and Madison clinics, where a majority of employees had signed up with the National Union of Healthcare Workers, according to the union.

Union supporters at the Wisconsin clinics have said they decided to seek union representation in response to increased caseloads, changes in how employee productivity was measured and a reduction in individual time that therapists and other providers could spend with patients.

“All of the changes were about increasing the number of patients that were coming into the building,” Stephani Lohman, a nurse practitioner, told the Wisconsin Examiner earlier this year. “It did not seem to have a cohesive plan and no plan would be communicated.”

The NUHW is based in California. After employees at a Rogers clinic in Walnut Creek, California, organized in 2023 and elected the union to represent them in 2023, they negotiated their first contract in 2024.

Employees at two other California clinics and at a clinic in Philadelphia also joined the union, which those three clinics voluntarily recognized.

Union supporters at the West Allis and Madison clinics each sought voluntary recognition of the union after organizing over the past year.

In Wisconsin, however, Rogers declined voluntary recognition, and the employees then filed petitions with the NLRB for union elections.

Lohman worked at the West Allis clinic, known as Lincoln Center, and was among those active in organizing the union. She said she and two other employees were fired after submitting the petition to be recognized. The union has filed unfair labor practice charges claiming that the three firings were in retaliation for union organizing, which is against the law.

In response to an inquiry in March about the firings, Maureen Remmel, Rogers’ executive director for marketing and communications, told the Wisconsin Examiner via email, “We do not comment on confidential personnel matters and have acted in compliance with applicable law.”

Hadsall held a hearing that took place Feb. 23 through Feb. 27 at the NLRB’s office in Milwaukee, where Rogers’ lawyers argued for a bargaining unit of 1,383 employees encompassing all Rogers locations in Wisconsin — three hospitals in the Milwaukee area and 10 outpatient clinics around the state.

Rogers had “a heavy burden” to overcome the presumption that a single facility is an appropriate bargaining unit, Hadsall wrote in her order this week, and she found that management had  failed to do so.

The evidence in how Rogers is organized and supervises its employees was insufficient to overcome a general presumption in U.S. labor law — that a union bargaining unit representing a single health care facility in a larger network or organization is considered appropriate.

Evidence in the case showed that neither of the two clinics had “lost their separate identity such that a single-facility union would be inappropriate,” Hadsall wrote.

Union elections for about 68 employees at the West Allis Lincoln Center clinic and about 35 at the Madison clinic are scheduled for Wednesday, April 22.

For employees at both clinics who have been seeking union representation, the decision was welcome news.

“I’m thrilled and beyond thrilled,” said Erin Quinlan, a behavioral health specialist at the Madison clinic. “It really just vindicated how firm our stance is and how confident we feel about organizing a union and doing so for the Madison clinic.”

Lohman said she and other West Allis employees who have been seeking union representation were pleased as well.

“I’ve just been feeling really overjoyed,” Lohman said Thursday. She and the other fired employees will be able to vote in the West Allis union election, she said.

Rogers Behavioral Health has announced the organization will appeal the order to the full NLRB in Washington, but that will not forestall next week’s voting.

“We are disappointed with the NLRB regional office’s decision to allow separate bargaining units given that Rogers Behavioral Health operates as one unified system across Wisconsin,”  Rogers said in a statement, which Remmel delivered via email. The statement asserted that patients “can move seamlessly between different levels of care, supported by providers who collaborate across locations.”

In her order, however, Hadsall found that there was not sufficient evidence of “functional integration” across the system to overcome the presumption that a single facility is appropriate for a bargaining unit.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

What are the odds the soon-to-retire Republican leaders of the state Legislature are seriously considering Gov. Tony Evers’ call to end partisan gerrymandering? 

Evers called the special session that began and ended with no action this week, asking legislators to take up a constitutional amendment to ban the practice of drawing voting maps that give a disproportionate advantage to one political party. 

Legislators didn’t exactly refuse — they’ve kicked the can down the road, adjourning temporarily until later this month. As Baylor Spears reports, Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu explained that legislators need to “gain public input in order to make an informed decision on how to proceed.” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Majority Leader Tyler August said they want to have more discussions with Evers to reach a “transparent and balanced solution that reflects the interests of all Wisconsinites.” 

Or maybe they just want to run out the clock, do nothing and then blame the governor for their failure to act. 

After all, President Donald Trump, the Republicans’ national leader, has been strong-arming GOP legislators in red states to hold extraordinary mid-decade redistricting sessions to draw him some extra seats to shore up an unpopular Republican House majority. Wisconsin Republicans would be swimming against the tide if they made their last act in office a good-government effort to lock in fair maps. 

Giving up power is not exactly on brand for Wisconsin Republicans. These are the same legislators who drew themselves into the most partisan gerrymandered districts in the country back in 2010. When it came time to draw another round of maps after the 2020 census, they gathered copious public input, holding hearings in which an overwhelming majority of voters told them that they wanted fair maps, and then ignored the public and gerrymandered the maps again. Only after the state Supreme Court declared those maps unconstitutional did they relent and accept 50/50 maps that lean slightly toward Republicans majorities.

Now they’re quitting in droves rather than work in a Legislature where they’ve lost the disproportionate power they conferred on themselves through gerrymandering.

Still, staring down the possibility of Democratic trifecta control of government, it’s possible Republicans could take the long view and try to protect their 50/50 stake before the other party has a shot at redrawing the districts. 

Then again, Republicans have shown very little appetite for that kind of sensible, good-government approach. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported this week, Republican legislative leaders are paying private attorneys $550 per hour in taxpayer money to defend their practice of hiring private attorneys at the taxpayers’ expense.

This freewheeling expenditure of your tax dollars follows a lawsuit filed by the public interest law firm Law Forward in February challenging the use of expensive private attorneys by GOP leaders. That practice started in the lame duck session after Evers was first elected, when Republican legislative leaders began frantically grabbing powers from the new Democratic administration. 

“It’s all about an unwillingness to exist within the bounds of checks and balances,” says Jeff Mandell of Law Forward. “It smacks of a sense that the Legislature, and particularly its leadership, is beyond accountability.”

That kind of arrogance is on its way out, along with the legislative leaders who, for more than a decade, treated government as their private club, hoarding power and ignoring the will of the voters. The best way to make sure it never returns is to permanently guarantee fair maps.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin Senate Democrats and their candidates for two districts key to determining control of the Senate in 2027 promised Thursday to pass bills to bring down the cost of health care, housing, groceries, energy and child care. 

At a press conference outside the state Capitol, Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) chastised Republican lawmakers for not taking action on an array of issues.

“We have to watch the Senate Republicans play this really strange game of what they’re doing with this special session,” Hesselbein said. “They refuse to go into the special session and get the job done for the people of Wisconsin.” 

This week lawmakers gaveled in for a special session called by Gov. Tony Evers who wanted the Legislature to take up a constitutional amendment that would  ban gerrymandering. Typically, Republican lawmakers have gaveled in and then immediately gaveled out of Evers’ special sessions, but on Tuesday, lawmakers gaveled in but then adjourned until Thursday. They said they were leaving the session open and they wanted to have more discussions with Evers, who said there wasn’t anything to talk about. 

Lawmakers returned on Thursday afternoon to postpone again until April 21. 

The state Assembly and Senate have both completed their regular session work this year, although  Evers and lawmakers are still trying to reach a deal on using some of the state’s $2.5 billion budget surplus to provide property tax relief to Wisconsinites and fund public schools. Discussions have still not resulted in action since they began in February.

Hesselbein said Senate Democrats are committed to working to improve affordability in the next legislative session and promised to pass a slate of 18 bills if they win the majority. Democrats have already introduced the bills in the current session, but they did not advance in the Republican-led Legislature. 

“Senate Democrats are here. We are ready to work,” Hesselbein said. “We could get these bills passed this legislative session and we could lower costs right now, but instead Republicans behind me in this building continue to use their last gasp of power to waste time and ignore the pressing needs of every single person in the state of Wisconsin.” 

The state Senate is currently controlled by an 18-15 Republican majority, meaning Democrats would need to hold all of their current seats and flip two additional seats to win control. The last time Democrats held a majority in the state Senate and Assembly was the 2009-11 legislative session.

There have been five announced retirements by Senate Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) and two incumbents in districts that will be key to determining control. 

Hesselbein said she is “surprised” by the number of retirements. 

“It is curious that now that we finally have fair maps, a fair number of them have decided to not run,” Hesselbein said. 

Hesselbein and current Democratic senators were joined by two of their preferred candidates in key districts for the press conference who spoke to the bill packages. 

Rep. Jenna Jacobson (D-Oregon) laid out the health care and housing bill package. She is running in a three-way primary in Senate District 17. The winner of the primary will face Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green), the budget committee co-chair who is running for his fourth term in office. The other two Democratic candidates in the primary are Corrine Hendrickson, a child care advocate and Lisa White of Potosi, a small business owner. 

“There’s no question that two of the most pressing concerns and most expensive aspects of life in Wisconsin are homeownership or rent and the cost of health care and medication,” Jacobson said. “As property values skyrocket, hedge funds buy up single-family homes. As we face limited supply and algorithmic price hikes designed to maximize profit, we are left with the landscape that makes it more and more difficult for folks to afford rent and the age for the average first-time homeowner is at an all-time high.”

The policies covered in the health and housing package of bills include: 

• Eliminating cost-sharing payments for prescription drugs under the BadgerCare program
• Capping the cost of insulin at $35 
• Capping the cost of asthma medication at $25 and the cost for related medical supplies at $50 a month
• Eliminating sales tax on over-the-counter medicines
• Increasing the limit on the homestead tax credit, which provides relief to low-income homeowners and renters, from about $24,000 to $35,000
• Banning hedge funds from buying Wisconsin homes
• Prohibiting the use of algorithmic software to set rental rates and penalizing landlords who use such software for that purpose

Trevor Jung, the Racine transit director, is running in Senate District 21, which is currently represented by Sen. Van Wangaard (R-Racine). Wanggaard, who has served in the Senate since 2010, announced his retirement last month. He introduced the “Families First” package, which seeks to address child care, energy and grocery costs. 

“The Wisconsin Republican-controlled Legislature has ignored the crisis of rising prices across the state,” Jung said. “When I join these folks behind me in the Wisconsin State Senate, I will get to work…Our work will ease the burden of rising costs on Wisconsin families.” 

The policies include: 

• Using state funding to extend Child Care Counts, the state program launched with pandemic relief funds to support child care centers
• Making the child and dependent care tax credit refundable, meaning that a taxpayer would get a cash refund for the difference between a filer’s tax liability and the credit’s full value
• Raising the threshold for eligibility for the Wisconsin Shares program to 85% of the state’s median income, so more families are eligible for a state subsidy for child care
• Regulating data centers by requiring they cover the cost of expansions of the energy grid, creating a new “very large” class of customer and mandating 70% renewable energy use by the centers 
• Requiring utilities to spend 2.4% of their revenues to fund energy efficiency and renewable resource programs
• Expanding the state investment in low-income energy assistance programs to $10.4 million a year from $6 million
• Requiring a state program to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy for low-income households 
• Providing free school meals to all Wisconsin students
• Restricting the use of algorithms to set prices in grocery stores
• Prohibiting dynamic price gouging of consumer goods in retail stores

Even with a majority in the Senate, the odds of having the bills become law will depend on the state Assembly, which is currently controlled by a Republican majority, as well as  the new governor. 

Democrats will need to hold all their current seats and flip five additional seats to win the Assembly majority. This election cycle will be a test-drive for the odd-numbered Senate districts up for election this year, but every Assembly seat has already been up for election under the new maps.

Hesselbein said she is confident that voters will elect Democrats up and down the ballot in November, including in the Assembly, but added that the bills should have bipartisan support. 

“These are not fringe issues that people are talking about. These are things that we’ve been hearing about from Rhinelander to Madison to Racine to Mount Horeb. Everywhere around the state people are talking about rising costs and what we can do to combat them, so I think we should have Republicans regardless of what the makeup of the state Assembly or the state Senate is.”

There will also be a new governor in 2027. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany is competing on the Republican side. There are seven major Democratic candidates, and Hesselbein said she believes each will be supportive of the Senate’s bills.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

As the midterms approach, Republican and Democratic election officials are split over a powerful federal computer program at the center of President Donald Trump’s quest to expose noncitizen voters and compile lists of voting-age Americans.

A U.S. House Administration Committee hearing Thursday underscored the partisan divide over the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE program. The online tool can verify U.S. citizenship by checking names against a host of government databases.

Republicans have embraced SAVE — Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements — as an effective new way to identify potential noncitizen voters. But Democrats have spurned it amid fears Trump is building a national voter database and concern that the program wrongly flags U.S. citizens.

Kansas Republican Secretary of State Scott Schwab and Minnesota Democratic Secretary of State Steve Simon staked out opposing views on SAVE during Thursday’s hearing. Purging noncitizens registered to vote is an ongoing focus of the Trump administration, though studies show noncitizen voting is extremely rare.

Kansas ran its voter roll through SAVE last year after the Trump administration refashioned the program, initially intended to check whether individual noncitizens are eligible for government benefits, into a citizenship verification tool and made it free for states. Schwab said SAVE had led Kansas to identify more than 5,500 registered voters who had died out of state.

“SAVE is one of the most important tools states have to verify voter information,” Schwab told the committee.

But Simon has previously raised concerns about the program. He signed a Dec. 1 letter with 11 other Democratic secretaries of state that said SAVE was likely to degrade rather than enhance state efforts to ensure free, fair and secure elections. The program is likely to misidentify eligible voters and chill voter participation, they wrote.

“I’m not throwing shade on my colleague, Secretary Schwab, but we have made the determination that it’s not yet ready for use in Minnesota,” Simon said Thursday, adding that Minnesota law doesn’t allow the use of SAVE.

Program central to Trump elections push

SAVE underpins Trump’s efforts to assert more White House power over federal elections, which under the U.S. Constitution are administered by states.

The Department of Justice is suing 29 states and the District of Columbia for access to their unredacted voter rolls, including sensitive personal data on voters, such as driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers. 

A Justice Department attorney said in federal court last month that the department has an agreement to share the information with Homeland Security for the purpose of identifying noncitizens.

Trump also signed an executive order last month that limits voting by mail and directs Homeland Security to compile lists of voting-age American citizens. The order says the lists will be derived from SAVE data, along with naturalization and Social Security records. At least five lawsuits have been filed against the order, including a challenge brought by Democratic state officials.

The White House is also pressuring Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, Trump’s signature elections proposal. The measure would require voters to provide documents proving their citizenship. Among its provisions is a requirement that states run their voter rolls through the SAVE program.

The House passed the bill in February. The Senate is debating a version of the legislation, which doesn’t appear to have enough votes to overcome a filibuster.

Nonprofit alternative available

“Election integrity is not a complicated issue. Only eligible voters should be casting ballots in our elections. One illegal vote is too many,” said Rep. Bryan Steil, a Wisconsin Republican and the House Administration Committee chair.

In January, Steil introduced the Make Elections Great Again Act, which contains similar provisions to the SAVE America Act but is more sweeping in its scope. It would impose additional limits on mail-in voting and require states to use SAVE to update voter lists every month.

Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the ranking Democrat on the committee, suggested states already have effective options other than SAVE. He singled out ERIC, or the Electronic Registration Information Center, a nonprofit organization that allows states to compare voter registrations and other data to identify out-of-date registrations, deceased voters and in some cases possible illegal voting.

“I think it would probably be malpractice not to talk about Electronic Registration Information Center,” Morelle said.

Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia belong to ERIC. Some Republican-led states withdrew from the organization several years ago after Trump urged them to leave amid false conspiracy theories, which he helped promote, that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

Simon said ERIC offers “really good” data that provides tremendous value in helping to keep Minnesota’s voter roll up to date. 

“Good data is the coin of the realm here,” he said.

Kansas doesn’t participate in ERIC. Schwab, who is running for governor in Kansas’ Republican primary, said it would be a good tool but that it’s expensive.

ERIC charges new members a one-time $25,000 fee, in addition to annual dues approved by its board of directors, according to the organization’s bylaws. Larger states pay more each year than smaller ones, with annual dues ranging from roughly $37,000 to $117,000, its website says.

“We don’t have the resources to join,” Schwab said.

The total number of Wisconsin jobs fell in February compared with January and also fell from the number in February 2025, the state labor department reported Thursday.

Meanwhile, employment was up in February compared with January, while it declined from February a year ago. The percentage of people who reported they were unemployed in February but actively seeking work rose from the previous month, however.

“I would hesitate to say, based on what we’ve seen so far with employment over [the past] year, whether we’re seeing a downward or an uptrend,” said Scott Hodek, section chief in the Department of Workforce Development office of economic advisors, in a briefing Thursday.

Shifting tariff policies and general economic volatility “are introducing a lot of noise in the economy right now,” Hodek said.

According to DWD, 3.02 million Wisconsinites were employed in February, an increase of 1,500 from January but a drop of 11,900 from February 2025. The unemployment rate, which includes people who report they are actively seeking work, rose to 3.4% in February from 3.3% in January.

There were 3.02 million nonfarm jobs in Wisconsin in February — down 10,500 from January and down 20,200 from February 2025.

“Any time we see a job drop it’s something we definitely want to pay attention to,” Hodek said. Current indicators are mixed and make it “difficult to parse where the economy is going,” he added. “You’ve got the [stock] market going one direction and you’ve got real consumer spending kind of flattening.”

There were 153,700 construction jobs in February, a gain of 800 from January and 10,200 from February 2025. There were 451,500 manufacturing jobs in February, down 100 from January and down 8,600 from February 2025.

“That’s related to multiple factors,” Hodek said, but declines “don’t always indicate the health of the industry.”

Automation, productivity increases and outsourcing can all lead to job reductions, he said. But the shrinkage can also reflect difficulty hiring, because the jobs numbers only show people who are working, not vacancies that employers are trying to fill, so “it can look like employment’s going down in manufacturing.”

Wisconsin’s job and employment numbers for January, February and March were delayed due to the annual adjustments made to the formulas that economists use to calculate them. Those delays were exacerbated by the federal shutdown in October and early November.

Wisconsin’s January numbers were released on April 2, and the March numbers will be released in two weeks on April 29.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House on Thursday passed a measure that would extend Temporary Protected Status for Haiti for three years, in a rare rebuke by the GOP-led Congress to President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

Ten Republicans defected, including Reps. Maria Salazar, Mario Díaz-Balart and Carlos Giménez of Florida, Rich McCormick of Georgia, Don Bacon of Nebraska, Mike Lawler and Nicole Malliotakis of New York, Mike Turner and Mike Carey of Ohio and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. 

Rep. Kevin Kiley, a California independent who caucuses with the GOP, also voted for the bill. 

The bill, which succeeded 224-204, came as Trump’s administration has sought to revoke legal protections for immigrants with Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, including Haitian nationals, amid his crackdown on immigrants without legal status.  

The bill now heads to the GOP-led Senate, and should that chamber pass the measure, would almost certainly be vetoed by Trump. 

Discharge petition

The Democratic-led effort came to the floor under a discharge petition, which allows a bill to skirt Republican leadership and be brought to the House floor once it gains the signatures of a majority of House members.

U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley — a Massachusetts Democrat and co-chair of the House Haiti Caucus — brought forth the petition in January and it reached the 218-signature threshold in late March.

Pressley’s petition forced a floor vote on a bill from New York Democratic Rep. Laura Gillen. The version voted on by the House would require the secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for TPS until April 2029. 

Lawler, a New York Republican, was an original co-sponsor of Gillen’s measure.

Lawler, Salazar, Fitzpatrick and Bacon had also signed on to Pressley’s discharge petition.

The bill’s passage in the House came just days before the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over Trump’s efforts to revoke TPS for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. 

A federal judge in February blocked the termination of TPS for Haiti from going into effect — shortly before the designation was slated to end. 

TPS is provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security secretary to nationals who cannot safely return home. The deportation protection lets individuals legally work in the United States, with renewal cycles that range from six to 18 months.  

‘A death sentence’

“Let us be clear about what deportation would mean — we would be sending parents back into danger, ripping our seniors away from their caregivers, faith leaders back into instability, and essential workers back into insecurity,” Pressley said at a Wednesday press conference she and Gillen held with colleagues and advocates regarding the effort. 

“To deport anyone to a country that is grappling with layered political, humanitarian and economic crises is unconscionable, it is dangerous and it is preventable,” Pressley added. 

“To deport anyone to Haiti right now is unlawful, and it would be a death sentence.”