Community organizations such as DAIS in Dane County could see further cuts if the Trump Administration is allowed to withhold VOCA funds. (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul has joined a multi-state lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s demand that states participate in federal immigration enforcement efforts or risk losing access to federal money available through the Victims of Crime Act. 

If the conditions are allowed to go through, Wisconsin could lose up to $24 million meant to help compensate victims of crime as well as fund local advocates, counselors and crisis response centers, according to a state Department of Justice news release

“VOCA funding is intended to be used to help victims of crime,” Kaul said in a statement. “It is appalling that the Trump administration is weaponizing this funding.”

Wisconsin is joined in the lawsuit, which was filed in a Rhode Island federal district court, by New Jersey, California, Delaware, Illinois, Rhode Island, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

VOCA takes fees, fines and penalties collected in federal court proceedings and disburses those funds to the states to use on victim services — which can include the operations of community-based organizations such as domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers and the work of victim-witness offices within county district attorneys’ offices. 

While individual law enforcement agencies have agreed to help immigration authorities in various capacities through efforts such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 287(g) program, the lawsuit argues that civil immigration enforcement is strictly a federal responsibility.  Requiring that states participate in such actions violates the constitution’s tenets of separation of powers and federalism, the suit argues. 

A handful of communities across the state have enacted policies to prevent local law enforcement from aiding ICE enforcement. Milwaukee Police Department policy states that immigration enforcement is the authority of the federal government and local cops getting involved in the enforcement of immigration law could harm the department’s relationship with immigrant communities. 

“With a policing philosophy that is community-based, problem-oriented, and data-driven, we are committed to ridding the city’s streets of violent offenders regardless of whether such offenders are in the United States legally or illegally,” the policy states. “We are also committed to facilitating safe, sustainable communities where individuals are encouraged to report crime and provide the police with useful information and intelligence. However, proactive immigration enforcement by local police can be detrimental to our mission and policing philosophy when doing so deters some individuals from participating in their civic obligation to assist the police.” 

The Trump Administration’s threat to withhold VOCA funds comes as the program has already seen massive cuts. Last year, Wisconsin’s portion of federal VOCA grants dropped from $40 million annually to $13 million. 

Because of those previous cuts, shelters across Wisconsin have been struggling to make ends meet and retain the services available for victims of crime. 

“Victim services is not just about one person gets hurt and experiences trauma, and then they’re helped and they go on with their lives,” Shira Phelps, executive director of DOJ’s Office of Crime Victim Services, told the Wisconsin Examiner last year. “This is really about sort of taking away a foundation for communities that help in every other aspect. Housing, education, all of those different fields are going to feel this really deep impact.”

Sheena Scarborough, mother of Sade Robinson, a 19-year-old woman murdered last year, thanked Rep. Shelia Stubbs for her efforts calling attention to the violence Black women and girls face. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

For the third session in a row, State Rep. Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison) is calling on Wisconsin lawmakers to create a task force to examine the violence African American women and girls face and develop policy solutions to prevent others from going missing and being murdered.

The bill would establish a 17-member task force to produce a report on the issue. Members would include two Senators, two Assembly representatives and other stakeholders, along with law enforcement representatives and representatives from advocacy or legal organizations, including those that focus on Black women and girls. 

“This is my third time to try and get a critical piece of legislation passed into law,” Stubbs said at a press conference Friday. 

Stubbs, inspired by a similar task force in Minnesota and one focused on Indigenous women in Wisconsin, first introduced the proposal during the 2021-2023 legislative session, but it failed to gain traction. The second iteration of the bill, during the 2023-25 session, passed the Assembly but stalled in the Senate as former Sen. Duey Stroebel initially refused to allow the bill to move forward. It eventually received a public hearing and was approved by a committee but never advanced to a vote on the Senate floor. 

“Can anyone tell me why this critical legislation could not get scheduled? Can you tell these families why their loved one was not important enough to at least get a hearing?” Stubbs asked at the press conference. “It is not fair to these victims and their families that they have to continue to wait for this Legislature to do something.” 

Stubbs said Wisconsin has the “worst disparity in the nation” when it comes to Black women and girls being killed. A 2022 investigation by the Guardian found five Black women and girls were killed each day in the U.S. in 2020. Wisconsin was the worst in the country, with the rate doubling that year. 

Coauthors on the new bill include Rep. Pat Snyder (R-Weston), Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) and LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee). 

“I’m demanding that we get an answer,” Stubbs said. “I am demanding that we get justice. How many more victims do we need in this state before we do something?”

Stubbs was joined at the press conference by Sheena Scarborough, mother of 19-year-old Sade Robinson, who was murdered last year.

“The things that we have gone through as a family,” Scarborough said. “They stand behind me knowing exactly what it’s like being a victim of a severe traumatic crime in the worst possible way… We are still dealing with ongoing trauma daily.” 

A jury found Maxwell Anderson guilty last month of murdering and dismembering Robinson, who had gone on a first date with him in 2024. Anderson’s sentencing is this week. 

Scarborough said there wasn’t enough support as she dealt with law enforcement and navigated the criminal justice system for the first time following her daughter’s murder. The lack of support  pushed her to start the Sade’s Voice Foundation, she said. The nonprofit was formed to advocate and provide  support for the families of missing Black women and girls.

“There weren’t many other supports through this time…. It doesn’t matter if you are Republican or Democrat. These are our babies. This was my daughter. She was a granddaughter. She was a sister. She had her whole life ahead of her,” Scarborough said. “The task force is definitely needed.”

The task force would examine several related issues. They include systemic causes of the violence Black women and girls experience, the appropriate methods for tracking and collecting data on violence against Black women and girls, government practices including policing related to investigating and prosecuting crimes against Black women and girls, measures that could reduce violence against them and ways to support victims and their families.

The final report, which would be due by 2027, would need to recommend policies and practices that would be effective in reducing gender violence and increasing the safety of Black women and girls and help victims and communities to heal from violence.

Angela Arrington, the social action coordinator for Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., said that  the task force could help address the persistent violence that Black women and girls face. 

“They are more likely to experience homicide, sexual assault and other forms of violence than their white counterparts, and these cases often go unsolved or receive less attention,” Arrington said. “The epidemic of violence is a complex issue with deep-rooted historical and systemic causes requiring comprehensive and coordinated action to address.” 

Attorney General Josh Kaul said lawmakers are needed to establish a task force and that a state investment must be included.

Kaul and Gov. Tony Evers included creating a task force in their budget proposals, but the Republican-led Joint Finance Committee did not include it in the final proposal. 

“People are ready to step up,” Kaul said. “The problem now is not whether there is interest among folks in collaborating and working to identify solutions. What we need is legislative will. We need the legislators and the Senate and the Assembly to pass legislation that will help ensure we have this task force… It’s clear that there is a need not just for action, but for there to be an investment so that we can seriously consider these issues.” 

He alluded to the new budget approved earlier this month that was celebrated as a bipartisan compromise by legislative leaders and Gov. Tony Evers.

“The Legislature was so close to passing legislation that would help us move forward on this issue, but we’ve seen there’s an opportunity for some compromise in this legislative session,” Kaul said. 

The bill includes one position supported with state funding of $80,200 in 2025-26 and $99,500 in 2026-27. 

Kaul said the additional Department of Justice employee would be essential to coordinate the work of the task force, including gathering data that may be needed. 

A similar task force focused on Indigenous women and girls was formed in 2020 by Kaul after legislation failed. Kaul started that task force without state funding by using federal funding from the Violence Against Women Act. He said at the press conference that the agency doesn’t have funding  for a similar pathway for the proposed new task force. 

The 2023 version of the bill did not include funding when it passed the Assembly. 

“This is a really significant issue that takes the investment of time and resources, and I don’t want to see a group come together without having the resources they need to be successful,” Kaul told reporters. “I want to see this done properly and right and that’s what this bill would do.”

From left, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley will look to run for governor in the 2026 Democratic primary, Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez announced her campaign Friday and Attorney General Josh Kaul declined to comment on his plans. (Photos by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Less than 24 hours after Gov. Tony Evers announced he wouldn’t run for another term in office, the field for the Democratic primary for governor is beginning to take shape as Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez launched  her campaign Friday morning while other potential candidates are still considering. 

Evers’ video announcing that he would retire because of his family ended months of speculation about a potential third term and triggered the start of the first open race for governor in Wisconsin since 2010. 

The Republican field is still shaping up, with Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann and Whitefish Bay manufacturer Bill Berrien have officially announced. Other potential candidates include U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany and businessmen Eric Hovde and Tim Michels, both of whom have recently lost statewide campaigns. 

The first Democrat in the race, Rodriguez in her campaign launch video took aim both at Republicans in Washington and at the GOP majority in the Legislature. 

“We’ve got a maniac in the White House. His tariffs are killing our farmers and his policies are hurting our kids,” Rodriguez said of President Donald Trump. “Our [state] Legislature refuses to expand Medicaid, even though 41 other states have done it. I mean Arkansas expanded Medicaid. Arkansas, but not Wisconsin. I’ll get it done.” 

Rodriguez was elected lieutenant governor in 2022, when Evers won his second term. She succeeded former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. Senate against Republican Sen. Ron Johnson that year. 

“I’ve been an ER nurse, a public health expert and a small business owner. I’m used to being on my feet and getting right to the point,” Rodriguez said in her video. “I have an announcement: I’m running for governor.” 

“I know what you’re thinking, you don’t have the time for the rest of this video,” Rodriguez said. “Look, I get it I’m a busy parent too, so here’s what you should know: I’ve got two kids that are way too embarrassed to be in this video, a dog named Chico and I met my husband salsa dancing – all true. My parents were Wisconsin dairy farmers. My dad served during Vietnam and fixed telephones at Wisconsin Bell. Mom was a union member who helped kids with special needs.”

Rodriguez got degrees in neuroscience and nursing before working as a nurse in an emergency room in Baltimore. She has also worked for the Centers for Disease Control and has served as vice president for several health care-related businesses, including at Advocate Aurora Health from 2017-2020.

Rodriguez said in the video that entering politics wasn’t part of her plan, but seeing “a broken system” she decided to run for the Assembly. She flipped a Republican seat that covered parts of Milwaukee and Waukesha in 2020 by 735 votes, and served for one term before making her run for lieutenant governor in 2021. After winning the Democratic primary, she joined Evers on the ticket. 

The Democratic Lieutenant Governors Association quickly endorsed Rodriguez Friday.

Rodriguez noted that control of the state Legislature is also at stake in 2026, with Democrats having the chance under new, fairer maps adopted in 2024 to win control. The last time there was a Democratic trifecta in Wisconsin was in the 2009-2010 session. 

“Look, we’ve got a real shot at flipping the state Legislature, and with a Democratic governor we can finally expand Medicaid and boost our health care workforce. We can strengthen our farms and unions and small businesses, fund our public schools and give teachers the raise they’ve earned. That’s the right path, and it’s what you and your family deserve,” Rodriguez said. “I can’t wait to earn your vote.”

Other Democrats on whether they’ll run

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley said in a statement Friday morning that he cares about the future direction of Wisconsin and that “I will be taking steps toward entering the race for Governor,” in the coming weeks. 

“The stakes are simply too high to sit on the sidelines,” Crowley said. “Governor Evers has laid a strong foundation. I believe it’s our responsibility to build on that progress — and I look forward to engaging in that conversation with the people of Wisconsin.” 

Crowley, 33, was elected to the county’s top office in 2020, the first African American and the youngest person to serve in the position. During his time in the job, Crowley has been a staunch  advocate for the state’s largest county, including helping secure a sales tax increase for Milwaukee. He also previously served for two terms in the state Assembly.

Asked whether she plans to run, state Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) told the Wisconsin Examiner Friday she is “giving it really serious consideration.” Roys came in third in the 2018 primary that nominated Evers.

“This is going to be a wide open primary,” Roys said. “I don’t think anybody has a strong advantage in it, and I think the stakes are incredibly high.” 

Roys said she thought Evers has “given more than anyone could ask to this state” and has earned the right to do whatever he wants. She said, however, that Democrats shouldn’t rely on old tactics in 2026 and that people want a candidate who will inspire them.

“Tony Evers has been a beloved governor of this state, and so I think he would have certainly been able to win a third term if that’s what he wanted to do,” Roys said. “At the same time, I think that there is a real hunger in the party and in the country generally, to see the next generation of leaders getting a chance, and we have a very strong bench in Wisconsin.”

Roys also ran for the U.S. House in 2012, losing in the primary for the 2nd District to U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan. 

Roys said that there is a lot at stake in the 2026 race. The country is at an “incredibly dangerous moment” with the Republican control in Washington, D.C., she said, and Wisconsin Democrats could have a “incredible opportunity” to deliver on an array of issues at the state level, including funding public education, supporting Wisconsin’s public universities and technical colleges, expanding access to health care, addressing the high cost of housing and child care, and protecting peoples’ rights and freedoms. 

For the last five years, Roys has served in the state Senate, including as a member of the Joint Finance Committee, and has been a strong advocate for funding child care and reproductive rights. 

Recalling her time in the Assembly from 2009-2013, including the last session when Democrats held a trifecta, Roys said Democrats didn’t accomplish enough.

“I’m determined to make sure that we do not blow this opportunity,” Roys said. “I think we need strong leadership from our next Democratic governor to make sure that we deliver for people in this state.” 

Roys said she is considering many factors in deciding whether to join the race, including whether she would be the right person for the position, her recent experience and her family, including their security.

Whether she runs or not, Roys said she will work across the state to help Democrats flip both houses. She isn’t up for reelection this year and Democrats have set a goal of winning control of the Senate and Assembly for the first time in over 15 years. 

“My hope is that all the candidates who are considering a run for governor are prioritizing flipping the Legislature,” Roys said. During Evers’ two terms with a Republican majority in both houses, “He wrote great budgets. They threw them in the garbage,” she said. “He wanted to pass a lot of great legislation that Democrats offered in the Legislature, and he could hardly sign many into law, because he was busy with that veto pen.” 

Attorney General Josh Kaul, who would likely be a top candidate if he runs, declined to tell reporters about his plans Friday, saying that it is important to reflect on Evers’ service and “the significance of where we’ve come in the last six and a half years.” 

“I don’t have any announcement today,” Kaul said. “I think in the next several weeks, you’ll hear from a number of people as to where they stand.” 

Kaul was first elected to the statewide position in 2018 and won a second term in 2022 in a close race against Eric Toney, a Republican prosecutor from Fond du Lac County. Since Trump took office for his second term, Kaul has joined several multistate lawsuits to push back on some of the federal government’s actions, including the withholding of funding

Other potential candidates include Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson and former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes.

Wisconsin has joined a lawsuit against the Trump administration's action to withhold $6.8 billion for education progams supporting English language learners, migrants, low-income children, adult learners and others. (Photo by Klaus Vedfelt/Getty Images)

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul joined 23 states and the District of Columbia Monday in suing the Trump administration for withholding $6.8 billion meant for six U.S. Department of Education programs, which help support English language learners, migrants, low-income children, adult learners and others. 

The funds, approved in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act 2025 and signed into law on March 15, are typically distributed to states by July 1. However, the Department of Education notified the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction as well as other state education agencies on June 30 that they would be withholding the funds. 

“Depriving our schools of critical resources is bad for our schools, bad for students, and bad for Wisconsin,” Attorney General Josh Kaul said in a statement. “This unlawful funding freeze should be stopped.”

The Wisconsin DPI said in a statement that the federal agency gave no specific explanation for the action. Instead, the U.S. Department of Education said that “decisions have not yet been made concerning submissions and awards for this upcoming academic year” and “accordingly, the Department will not be issuing Grant Award Notifications obligating funds for these programs on July 1 prior to completing that review. The Department remains committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the President’s priorities and the Department’s statutory responsibilities.” 

The withholding of funds comes as the Trump administration continues to pursue closing the Department of Education with a plan to lay off more than 1,000 agency employees and resume drastically cutting the agency after getting the greenlight from the U.S. Supreme Court Monday. The Trump administration has also withheld other funds this year, including for grants for mental health in schools. A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement about the review of education funding that “initial findings have shown that many of these grant programs have been grossly misused to subsidize a radical leftwing agenda.” 

The multi-state lawsuit argues that the freeze of the $6.8 billion violates federal laws and regulations that authorize and fund the programs, federal laws, including the Antideficiency Act and Impoundment Control Act, that govern the federal budgeting process and the constitutional separation of powers doctrine and the Presentment Clause. 

The coalition of states is requesting that the court provide declaratory relief by finding the freeze is unlawful and offer injunctive relief by requiring the release of the funds. 

Over $72 million is being withheld from Wisconsin. Without the funding, school districts face funding shortfalls for programs that have already been planned, DPI may have to lay off 20 employees and programs at Wisconsin’s technical colleges are in trouble with $7.5 million in adult education grants being withheld.

State Superintendent Jill Underly said in a statement that Wisconsin schools depend on the federal funding distributed through an array of programs to support students. There are five programs affected: Title I-C, which supports migrant education, Title II-A, which goes towards teacher training and retention, Title III-A, which supports education of English language learners, Title IV-A, which is for student enrichment and after-school programs and Title IV-B, which supports community learning centers.

“Make no mistake, stopping this money has had and will continue to harm our families and communities,” Underly said. 

Wisconsin schools have received funding through these federal programs for decades to help carry out related programs. According to DPI, federal funding makes up about 8% of funding for Wisconsin schools with nearly $850 million coming into the state. 

Sen. Tammy Baldwin alongside 31 other U.S. senators penned a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and Education Secretary Linda McMahon, calling on them to release the money. 

“This delay not only undermines effective state and local planning for using these funds to address student needs consistent with federal education law, which often takes place months before these funds become available, but also flies in the face of the nation’s education laws which confers state and local educational agency discretion on permissible uses of federal formula grant funds,” the senators wrote. “We are shocked by the continued lack of respect for states and local schools evidenced by this latest action by the administration.”

“It is unacceptable that the administration is picking and choosing what parts of the appropriations law to follow, and you must immediately implement the entire law as Congress intended and as the oaths you swore require you to do,” the lawmakers said. 

The lawmakers also said the “review” being undertaken by the administration appears to be intentional to delay the funding and will result in budget cuts for schools. They said it is happening “with no public information about what the review entails, what data the administration is examining or a timeline for such review.”

The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

In a 4-3 decision, Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the state’s 1849 law banning abortion had been “impliedly repealed” by the Legislature when it passed laws over the past half century “regulating in detail the ‘who, what, where, when, and how’” of abortion. 

The Court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Rebecca Dallet and joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz, finds that the Legislature could not have passed laws regulating abortion access if the 1849 statute was believed to remain in effect. 

“This case is about giving effect to 50 years’ worth of laws passed by the Legislature about virtually every aspect of abortion including where, when, and how health-care providers may lawfully perform abortions,” Dallet wrote. “The Legislature, as the peoples’ representatives, remains free to change the laws with respect to abortion in the future. But the only way to give effect to what the Legislature has actually done over the last 50 years is to conclude that it impliedly repealed the 19th century near-total ban on abortion, and that [the statute] therefore does not prohibit abortion in the State of Wisconsin.” 

Dallet wrote that when the Legislature passed laws restricting abortion under narrower circumstances, guiding “where, when and how” health care providers could perform an abortion and outlining how public money could fund abortion providers, it was repealing the 1849 law. 

The ruling comes three years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark Court ruling that found there was a constitutional right to abortion access and marks the conclusion of a legal dispute that helped Protasiewicz win election to the Court in 2023 and Susan Crawford win election this April. 

In response, the Court’s three conservative justices filed dissents, accusing the majority of “propaganda,” “smoke-and-mirrors legalese” and “pure policymaking.” 

“The majority’s smoke-and-mirrors legalese is nothing more than ‘painting a mule to resemble a zebra, and then going zebra hunting. But paint does not change the mule into a zebra,’” Justice Annette Ziegler wrote. “Those in the majority know better, but they do so anyway because they like the result and promised to deliver it.” 

In his dissent, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote that the majority failed to show when the law was presumably repealed by the Legislature, saying that the opinion doesn’t properly address the Legislature’s actions in 2011 and 2015 amending the 1849 law.  

“The majority does not say when over those 40 years the Legislature once and for all repealed [the statute],” he wrote. “Was it when the Legislature passed a postviability ban? A partial-birth abortion ban? A twenty-week ban? A waiting period? A physician licensing requirement? The majority fails to say.”

23AP2362 Mandate

Following the ruling’s release, the state’s Democratic elected officials and abortion access activists celebrated the decision as a “win” for reproductive health care in the state. 

“Thanks to our lawsuit, today’s decision affirms that access to reproductive healthcare will continue to be available, helping ensure Wisconsin women today are not forced to face firsthand what it’s like to live in a state that bans nearly all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest,” Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement. “Today is a win for women and families, a win for healthcare professionals who want to provide medically accurate care to their patients, and a win for basic freedoms in Wisconsin, but our work is not over. I will continue to fight any effort that takes away Wisconsinites’ reproductive freedom or makes reproductive healthcare, whether birth control, abortion, IVF, or fertility treatments, any less accessible in Wisconsin than it is today. That is a promise.”

Attorney General Josh Kaul, who brought the lawsuit against the law, said at a Wednesday morning news conference that the decision was an important step toward ensuring all Wisconsinites have the freedom to access abortion care, but that the Legislature should step up and further clarify the law.

“I thought we were right on the law. The arguments we made have now been vindicated,” Kaul said. “But at a time when the rights of Wisconsinites and Americans are under threat, this case is a stark reminder of how important it is that we fight for our rights, that we advocate for what is in the best interest of the people of our state, and that we stand on the side of freedom. Here today, we were able to achieve a significant victory for the freedom of Wisconsinites.”

Wisconsin’s state and federal Democratic lawmakers responded to the ruling by saying it wasn’t enough, promising to continue working to codify abortion access in law. 

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin said she will continue to work to enact her proposal to ensure women across the country have access to abortion care. 

“Today’s ruling tells women across Wisconsin that we will not go back,” Baldwin said. “Today’s ruling tells women that our government trusts you to make decisions about your own body and your future. Today’s ruling tells women in our state that they are not second-class citizens. But, this fight is not over. Every woman, in every zip code, in every state deserves the same rights and freedoms. I will not stop fighting until we make that a reality and pass my bill to restore the right to abortion nationwide and allow women to make their own health care decisions without interference from judges or politicians.”

State Sen. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) said the Legislature must now pass a bill guaranteeing the right to an abortion. 

“Now that the courts have made it clear that Wisconsin does not have a total abortion ban, we must go further,” Subeck said. “It’s time to protect reproductive rights not just in practice, but in law. We must pass the Abortion Rights Restoration Act to guarantee the right to abortion and eliminate the medically unjustified, politically motivated restrictions that still exist in our state statutes. The people of Wisconsin deserve nothing less than full access to safe and legal reproductive health care without unnecessary barriers and free from judgement.”

In a concurring opinion, Karofsky wrote that interpreting the 1849 law as banning abortion gives the state the authority to “exert total control” over women and “strips women and pregnant people of the dignity and authority to make intimate and personal choices by exposing medical professionals who perform abortions to 15-year prison terms.” 

In her opinion, Karofsky details the history of abortion access in the U.S. and highlights four women who died because of restrictive abortion bans, including the recent deaths of two Black women in Georgia and a Honduran immigrant in Texas as well as the death of her own great-grandmother in Boston in 1929. 

“I tell the stories of Amber, Candi, Josseli, and my great-grandmother Julia to remind us that severe abortion restrictions operate like death warrants,” Karofsky wrote. “Under such restrictions women, children, and pregnant people are denied life-saving medical care while medical professionals are forced to sit idly at their bedsides, unable to do their jobs. Extreme abortion restrictions revive a time in our history driven by misogyny and racism, divorced from medical science; it is a world that must be left behind.” 

In her dissent, Justice Rebecca Bradley accused Karofsky of rewriting history to achieve a desired outcome in the case. 

“Not content with effacing the law, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky rewrites history, erases and insults women by referring to mothers as ‘pregnant people,’ slanders proponents of the pro-life perspective, and broadcasts dangerously false narratives about laws restricting abortion,” Bradley wrote. “Laden with emotion, steeped in myth, and light on the law, the concurrence reads as a parody of progressive politics rather than the opinion of a jurist.”

A unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with the Democratic state attorney general Tuesday in a long-running battle over a law passed by Republicans who wanted to weaken the office in a lame duck legislative session more than six years ago.

The court ruled 7-0 that requiring the attorney general to get permission from a Republican-controlled legislative committee to settle certain civil lawsuits was unconstitutional. The law is a separation of powers violation, the court said.

The Republican-controlled Legislature convened a session in December 2018 after Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul defeated Republican incumbents. The laws signed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker on his way out the door weakened powers of both offices.

At issue in the case decided Tuesday was the attorney general’s power to settle civil lawsuits involving environmental and consumer protection cases as well as cases involving the governor’s office and executive branch. The new law required the Legislature’s budget committee, which is controlled by Republicans, to sign off on those settlements.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2020, when controlled by conservatives, upheld all of the lame duck laws and ruled they did not violate the separation of powers principle. But the ruling left the door open to future challenges on how the laws are applied.

Kaul sued that year, arguing that having to seek approval for those lawsuit settlements violates the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. The Legislature argued that lawmakers have an interest in overseeing the settlement of lawsuits and that the court’s earlier ruling saying there was no separation of powers violation should stand.

Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford, who won election to the state Supreme Court in April and will be joining the court in August, ruled in favor of Kaul in 2022, saying the law was unconstitutional. A state appeals court overturned her ruling December, saying there was no separation of powers violation because both the executive and legislative branches of government share the powers in question.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Legislature cannot “assume for itself the power to execute a law it wrote.”

There is no constitutional justification for requiring the Legislature’s budget committee to sign off on court settlements at issue in the case, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote for the court.

Kaul praised the ruling, saying in a statement that the decision “finally puts an end to the legislature’s unconstitutional involvement in the resolution of key categories of cases.”

Republican legislative leaders who defended the law had no immediate comment Tuesday.

The win for Kaul comes as Evers has been unsuccessful in overturning numerous law changes affecting the power of the governor. He’s proposed undoing the laws in all four state budgets he’s proposed, and courts have upheld the laws when challenged.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down GOP law weakening attorney general’s power is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Attorney General Josh Kaul speaks with reporters outside the Wisconsin Supreme Court in February 2023. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision Tuesday that the Legislature’s Republican-controlled Joint Finance Committee (JFC) doesn’t have the authority to approve settlement agreements made by the state Department of Justice (DOJ) in certain types of cases. 

The Legislature gave itself that authority as part of the lame duck laws it passed when Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul were elected in 2018, taking powers away from the executive branch offices once they were no longer held by Republicans. A previous challenge to the law giving JFC authority over settlements failed because the Court found there are some cases when the committee does have the authority to control how settlement money is spent. 

In a statement, Kaul said the decision will allow the DOJ to more efficiently do its job. 

“This unanimous ruling finally puts an end to the legislature’s unconstitutional involvement in the resolution of key categories of cases,” he said. “As a result, the Wisconsin Department of Justice will be able to more efficiently resolve the cases that are impacted by this decision, including civil actions enforcing our consumer protection laws and civil actions enforcing our environmental protection laws.” 

This second challenge to the law was filed by Evers and Kaul, arguing that it is unconstitutional for the Legislature to give itself the authority to weigh in on settlements in civil enforcement actions and actions that state agencies request DOJ to pursue. The case was initially brought in Dane County Circuit Court, where a judge sided with Evers and Kaul. The Court of Appeals overturned that ruling and the Supreme Court has reversed the appellate decision. 

These types of cases include the enforcement of environmental, consumer protection, financial regulation and medical assistance laws and lawsuits over the breach of a contract with the state or damage to state property. 

In Tuesday’s decision, authored by Justice Brian Hagedorn, the Supreme Court ruled that these types of cases are “core” executive powers and while the Legislature can pass laws giving the attorney general and DOJ guardrails over how to apply the law, it can’t intervene in the settlement process. 

“Thus, DOJ’s litigation in these categories of cases is, rather straightforwardly, the execution of laws enacted by the Legislature,” Hagedorn wrote. “Just as the pursuit of these claims is unequivocally an executive function, so is the settlement of them. When the Legislature gives authority to the Attorney General to pursue these claims, it necessarily confers discretion on how to pursue the claims to completion, through settlement or otherwise.” 

The Legislature had argued that because the state’s Constitution requires it to account for all “sources of income” to the state so it can determine tax levels, it must have the authority to determine the amount of money awarded to the state in the settlement of a lawsuit. 

Hagedorn wrote that the Legislature has given the attorney general the authority to bring these lawsuits and resolve them as he sees fit, including the amount of money in a settlement. 

“The Legislature’s argument seems to rest on the notion that the Legislature must be able to account ahead of time for how much money will come into the state’s coffers in the upcoming year, and therefore be allowed veto power over settlement agreements in the event its math may be off,” he wrote. “This doesn’t make sense. While undoubtedly the Legislature would be wise to account for all sources of income when determining the amount to tax in the coming year, it does not follow that the Legislature has a constitutional interest in controlling every executive function involving the collection of revenue, or even taxes.” 

“We fail to understand why the power and duty to levy taxes allows the Legislature to control the execution of the law,” he continued. “If the Legislature wishes to know the amount of any settlements, it may prescribe that by law. If it wishes to establish more specific direction regarding settlement revenues, it may do so by law, and it already has in some areas. The Legislature simply has not connected the dots for why the taxing power gives it a constitutional role in litigation involving the receipt of monies into state coffers.” 

Hagedorn added that by this logic the Legislature could insert itself into basically any executive branch function involving money. 

“If the Legislature has a constitutional interest in the execution of the laws every time an executive action involves money, there would be virtually no area where the Legislature could not insert itself into the execution of the law,” he wrote. “The constitution cannot and does not mean that.”

The Legislature also argued that provisions in the settlement of a given lawsuit could have policy implications and, as the law-making branch of government, it should have the authority to determine those aspects of a settlement agreement. But Hagedorn wrote that the executive branch’s duty to enforce the laws the Legislature passes inherently requires the exercise of some discretion and that discretion will undoubtedly have policy impacts. 

“In executing the law, executive branch officials must decide how to effectuate the law’s policies, and those decisions will necessarily have policy implications,” Hagedorn wrote. “The Legislature’s argument that it can step into the shoes of the executive when executive action impacts policy would eviscerate the separation of powers.” 

Exercising the discretion given to the executive branch will have a policy impact, he wrote, and “it is the Legislature that has given this authority and discretion in the first place, including any limitations on how settlements are to be spent. When the Attorney General, therefore, decides where settlement proceeds are to be directed, he is acting within the scope of the authority the Legislature gave him. If the Legislature is dissatisfied with the discretion it left to the Attorney General, it may amend the laws accordingly.”