U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., speaks to reporters during a press conference inside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, March 27, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — The top Republican and top Democrat on the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee sent the Trump administration a joint letter on Thursday, telling the Office of Management and Budget it’s on thin ice with the panel.
The dispute has to do with how the White House is implementing the stopgap spending law that Congress approved earlier this month, which funds the federal government through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.
Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, and ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash, wrote in the two-page letter that the way OMB is approaching a section on emergency designations is in sharp contrast to how other administrations have implemented it.
“This (or substantially similar) language has been used in appropriations legislation for decades, and it has always been interpreted to give the President a binary choice: He must concur with all or none of Congress’s emergency designations,” Collins and Murray wrote. “Just as the President does not have a line-item veto, he does not have the ability to pick and choose which emergency spending to designate.
“This interpretation is consistent with congressional intent and is the most logical and consistent reading of the law.”
The two wrote the Trump administration’s new “piecemeal approach” raises questions about whether emergency funding, including $8 billion in housing assistance, will be available as Congress intended.
Collins and Murray appeared to imply that OMB not correcting course on the emergency designation would strain the working relationship between the Appropriations Committee and the Trump administration.
The two will need to work together in the months ahead to draft the dozen appropriations bills for fiscal year 2026, which is slated to begin Oct. 1.
“We are concerned that sudden changes to OMB’s interpretation of long-standing statutory provisions could be disruptive to the appropriations process and make it more difficult for the Appropriations Committee to work in a collaborative fashion with the Administration to advance priorities on behalf of the American people,” they wrote. “Collaboration will become even more challenging when the Committee is first informed of such developments through the press, rather than notified through official channels, as was the case here.”
The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
I’ve studied the rulings of the Wisconsin Supreme Court for well over a decade, and for most of that time, the court tended to put corporations and employers over workers or consumers. That has changed in the last couple of years. And now that voters have elected a pro-worker majority, billionaires like Elon Musk are spending big to return a pro-corporate majority to power.
In a 2023 report that I authored for People’s Parity Project Action, we found that the state Supreme Court had ruled for corporations or employers in most of the cases where individuals were on the other side. The report commented on the stakes of that year’s election: “Instead of the reactionary justices who’ve put corporations over workers, [Wisconsinites] could have a majority that gives everyone a fair shot.”
In the weeks after our report was released, around the time of the spring 2023 election, the high court ruled for workers or consumers in several cases. Later that year, Judge Janet Protaseiwicz was sworn in, forming a progressive, pro-democracy majority.
Around a year ago, this new majority ruled along ideological lines in a case that impacted workers across the state. The appeal involved unemployment insurance for Catholic Charities and some affiliated charities that help the poor and people with disabilities find jobs. The nonprofit employers tried to argue that they were exempt from the unemployment insurance system under the “ministerial” exception, which applies to employers that are both controlled by a religious organization and “operated primarily for religious purposes.”
The court ruled 4–3 that the organizations aren’t “operated primarily for religious purposes.” The justices examined the activities of the groups (job training, help with daily living activities, etc.) and concluded that they aren’t religious. As the court notes, the smaller charities weren’t even receiving funding from Catholic Charities and were primarily funded through government contracts.
The majority emphasized that the unemployment statute has always been interpreted broadly to cover as many workers as possible, ever since the state became the first to set up such a system in 1932. The statute says that unemployment compensation addresses an “urgent public problem” by sharing the burdens of unemployment.
This ruling meant that dozens of Catholic Charities workers and all of its sub-organizations’ employees — the people who help people in need find jobs — can get unemployment benefits if they lose their jobs through no fault of their own. The Freedom from Religion Foundation noted that a ruling in favor of Catholic Charities would have jeopardized unemployment insurance for thousands of workers at “religiously-affiliated hospitals and colleges.”
Justice Rebecca Bradley, whose dissent was partially joined by the other conservatives, began with a Bible verse and an invocation of “Jesus Christ himself.” She argued for deferring to an employer’s stated motivations to determine if its workers are ministerial.
Bradley also argued that the majority’s ruling violates the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The case is now headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has expanded the First Amendment rights of religious employers at the expense of their workers. Though this case implicates the First Amendment, most cases involving workers only involve state law. This means that the Wisconsin Supreme Court gets the final say.
Right now, billionaires and corporations are spending big to end the pro-worker majority and put the state Supreme Court’s power back in the hands of right-wing justices who will rule in their favor. With Musk-aligned groups pouring in at least $12 million, spending in the race is on track to break the record for spending in a U.S. judicial election — a record set in 2023 in Wisconsin, the election that changed control of the court.
The pro-corporate majority that presided over the state for a decade-and-a-half first came to power in 2008. In that year’s election, corporate interests deliberately targeted a justice who had ruled against the manufacturers of dangerous lead paint. This majority was mired in conflicts of interest and bitter interpersonal conflicts. In 2010, they adopted an ethics rule that was literally written by a corporate-funded group that backed the conservative justices. A few years later, they shut down a campaign finance investigation into big business groups that had spent millions to get them elected.
For billionaires and corporations, the stakes are clear in this year’s high court election. Wisconsin judges are ruling on cases affecting voters, workers, and people facing criminal charges.
In one case, Musk’s Tesla car company is currently appealing a judge’s decision to deny it an exemption to a state law that prohibits car companies from owning car dealerships. Musk’s company wants to open four dealerships throughout the state — at a time when those dealerships are facing hundreds of protests in states around the country. If a Tesla customer sues the company, Musk would probably prefer that a pro-corporate judge hear the case.
With the court’s current majority in power, workers and consumers actually have a shot at justice. The justices have made progress in protecting democracy. They finally struck down gerrymandered election districts and overturned a prior ruling that barred the use of ballot drop boxes.
Musk and his wealthy friends want to take all of that away. But in Wisconsin, the voters decide who sits on their state’s highest court.
The Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa said it won’t block access to roads or ticket nontribal residents for trespassing on tribal lands in a longstanding dispute with the town of Lac du Flambeau.
There’s good news and bad news in a recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision upholding an open records judgment related to the ridiculous and ham-handed investigation into alleged 2020 election fraud headed by former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman.
On the good news side, the appellate court upheld a lower court ruling that the state of Wisconsin must pay $241,000 in legal fees because various officials — including Gableman and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos — flouted the public records law by failing to turn over legally requested information in a timely manner.
The bad news? There’s plenty. First, taxpayers — not the offending political characters — have to pony up the $241,000. And taxpayers clearly did nothing wrong.
Moreover, this case illustrates a near-fatal flaw in the state of Wisconsin’s otherwise exemplary Open Records Law. The statute is among the nation’s best, setting forth that Wisconsin considers openness the default position and holding that records requesters who are denied documents illegally may recover court costs and lawyers’ fees.
But think about that number again. Who has $241,000 to put on the line in an attempt to force the government to follow its own laws?
Bill Barth
In this particular case, an established liberal organization called American Oversight fought to make the government abide by the law.
This same law, though, is supposed to empower every citizen to approach any level of government — the school board, the city council — and request access to public records, which then must be turned over except in relatively rare instances that fall within narrowly defined exemptions. That sounds better than it sometimes works in practice, as the Gableman case shows.
If authorities decide to be difficult and stonewall a records request, the citizen can hire a lawyer and go to court like American Oversight. And, in fairly short order, the citizen could wind up owing a lot of money.
That potential outcome is not a secret. Officials at all levels of government are well aware that prohibitive costs can lead to would-be records requesters relinquishing their rights rather than risking high legal fees. Any time that happens — and it does happen — a good law is turned upside down in a way that encourages public officials to just say no.
In the past, news media organizations frequently stood in for citizens and went up against public authorities bent on hiding secrets. That can cost a lot of money and, the state of the news business being what it is these days, fewer news organizations are willing to take on this risk. As a result, citizens’ rights to information are diminished.
An alternative does exist in the law. When records are refused, the law says requesters can turn to county district attorneys or the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office. But again, in practice, that’s a weak option. Prosecutors are busy dealing with burglars and rapists and killers. Taking on their fellow government officials over a stack of paper is low on the priority list. It’s rare for a district attorney anywhere in the state to haul a city, county or state records custodian in front of a judge to enforce the law.
So too many officials believe they can get away with withholding public records. Or they can rest easy in the knowledge it will be taxpayers, not them, stuck with the bill even if they lose a challenge.
The Legislature could fix this, with a reform that sharpens enforcement teeth in the law. Instead, it’s the sound of silence that you hear coming from the Capitol, and every other government building.
Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Bill Barth is the former editor of the Beloit Daily News, where a version of this column originally appeared.
Community and environmental justice advocates say the Biden administration is failing to deliver promised transparency and public engagement around its $7 billion clean hydrogen hub initiative.
“Engagement isn’t merely leading people into a process that’s going to happen with or without them,” said Tom Torres, hydrogen program director for the Ohio River Valley Institute, a nonprofit serving one of the regions where federally funded partnerships are trying to lay the groundwork for new local hydrogen economies. “It means meaningfully involving people in the decisions about the project.”
The U.S. Department of Energy announced funding in October 2023 for seven regional clean hydrogen hubs — clusters of interconnected projects meant to kickstart production of the fuel with little or no greenhouse gas emissions. Since then, the department has held online briefings and virtual listening sessions for each hub, but advocates say they are not getting the kind of information necessary to assess who will be impacted by the projects and how.
Torres and others say they want more than just dots on a map. They want to know how hydrogen will be produced, how it will be used, and how it will get to end users. For projects that depend on carbon capture, they want to know how and where the carbon will be captured, transported and stored. And once the specifics are known, they want a chance to have meaningful input on the final projects.
Spokespeople for the Department of Energy and regional hubs said the answers to those questions are still being worked out and that more engagement is on the horizon. Advocates are increasingly frustrated and fear that community input will come too late to affect how the hubs are developed.
“It doesn’t make sense … on one hand to say there’s not enough on paper to tell the public about, but on the other hand there is enough to allocate almost $1 billion for these companies,” Torres said.
Are events just ‘checking a box’?
When burned as a fuel source, hydrogen does not emit carbon dioxide, but its production today almost always comes from fossil fuels. Some see a potential for hydrogen to replace natural gas in certain hard-to-electrify sectors such as industry or heavy duty transportation, but the benefits for addressing climate change hinge on whether it can be produced cleanly and at scale.
The Biden administration’s hydrogen hub program, part of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, aims to ramp up production of hydrogen made with low-carbon energy, including renewables, nuclear power, and fossil fuels paired with carbon capture.
“It is literally like building the natural gas infrastructure that we have all over the place again for hydrogen,” said Shawn Bennett, energy and resilience manager for Battelle, the project manager for the Appalachian Regional Hydrogen Hub, ARCH2, which includes projects for Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. A majority of its projects will use steam methane reforming to make hydrogen from natural gas, along with carbon capture and storage. Other projects in the hub plan to make hydrogen from waste gases or from electrolysis, which uses energy to split water molecules.
In May, dozens of groups urged the Department of Energy to suspend funding discussions for the ARCH2 project until the public receives detailed information beyond general maps and short project descriptions. On July 31 the Department of Energy formally committed the first $30 million of federal funding to ARCH2, with a total of up to $925 million to be spent over the next decade or so.
Last month, the Department of Energy committed up to $1 billion for the Midwest Alliance for Clean Hydrogen, MachH2, which spans Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Iowa and plans to produce hydrogen from a mix of nuclear power, wind energy and natural gas. The department will hold a December 9 briefing on MachH2.
In response to the Energy News Network’s questions about community groups’ complaints about a lack of outreach, a Department of Energy spokesperson provided a statement saying it “has been actively engaged with these communities in support of the economic playbook” of the Biden-Harris administration.
The ARCH2 project held a community outreach session in West Virginia in November, and additional meetings will be held in Ohio and Pennsylvania early next year, Bennett said. Some community group members protested outside at the West Virginia session but then came inside for a good discussion, he added.
Torres said there was no general presentation at the West Virginia meeting, and company representatives were present for only a handful of the hub’s projects. Even then, project information was still sparse.
“It wasn’t an opportunity for people’s voices to be heard,” he said. “What is the value of these events other than checking a box for these companies?”
Advocacy groups focusing on the MachH2 project said months went by without getting updates or details. Then last month, they got less than 24 hours’ notice for a briefing with general descriptions about the MachH2 hub projects.
During that session, representatives for the Department of Energy said a decision on the hub’s funding commitment would come soon, “probably next week sometime,” said Susan Thomas, the legislative and policy director and communications manager for Just Transition Northwest Indiana. Minutes after the November 20 session ended, the Department of Energy announced the MachH2 funding commitment.
“Our jaws were on the table,” Thomas said.
Details remain to be worked out
Groups have been trying to get answers from the Department of Energy for more than a year, said Chris Chyung, executive director of Indiana Conservation Voters. In his view, the agency’s approach “is just flouting the law.” According to the Department of Energy’s website, engagement with communities and labor is a key principle required in hubs’ community benefits plans, which are part of hubs’ contractual obligations for funding.
Community groups learned in the November 20 briefing that the MachH2 community engagement would not address concerns related to any pipelines associated with the hub. Instead, those would be handled by a separate office within the Department of Energy.
But a pipeline for northwestern Indiana “is absolutely part and parcel of [a] dirty hydrogen project that is part of MachH2,” and the community should get a say on it, said Lauren Piette, an attorney with Earthjustice, which does not consider hydrogen made with natural gas to be climate-friendly, even with carbon capture.
The Department of Energy spokesperson did not respond to the Energy News Network’s question about how community benefits for hub projects can fully be assessed if they don’t include consideration of issues and input related to necessary pipelines.
Representatives of the MachH2 and ARCH2 hubs who spoke at an Ohio Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Consortium program last month said they couldn’t practically engage in community outreach until funding commitments had been negotiated with the Department of Energy. Until then, it wasn’t certain whether each hub would move forward.
Also, as a practical matter, “there was no budget for these things,” Bennett said. Details for each hub’s projects are still being worked out, and ARCH2 is still trying to add additional project partners.
Even then, details for projects won’t be finalized until review under the National Environmental Policy Act, according to Neil Banwart, who is the chief integration officer for the MachH2 hub and also the managing director for hydrogen at Energy Systems Network.
“It’s not a certainty that all of the projects will get built in the locations that we shared on a map,” he said.
Chyung said he felt the comments about funding were “a complete dodge on behalf of these extremely wealthy national corporations that have said since 2023 they were eager to get started on community outreach.”
The other day, in my role as an advocate for open government, I heard from a Wisconsin resident who has waited more than five months for records he requested from a local law enforcement agency. He has gently prodded the agency several times, asking, “How much more time is my request going to take?” More than three months have passed since these queries have yielded a response.
Such long, frustrating wait times are not uncommon. Wisconsin’s Open Records Law allows any person to obtain any document in the possession of state and local government officials, with limited exceptions. But, unlike in some other states, there is no set time limit. Rather, the law simply directs record custodians to act “as soon as practicable and without delay.”
What does that mean? Good question.
The state Justice Department has said that “10 working days is a reasonable time for an authority to respond” to simple records requests. But this is not binding advice. Moreover, no court has ever ruled that a particular wait time was excessive.
Bill Lueders
I tell people experiencing long wait times to practice their “Ps”: Be polite. Be persistent. And be pragmatic — offer to clarify or refine your request to make it more manageable. Sometimes, this helps move things along. Other times, it seems to make no difference.
That’s where Tom Kamenick comes in. He is the founder and president of the Wisconsin Transparency Project, the state’s only law firm devoted entirely to open government litigation. Since 2019, Kamenick has filed seven lawsuits alleging illegal delays in the processing of open records requests. He has lost only one case — in which the records were provided but had ended up in the requester’s spam folder.
His other six cases ended in settlements favorable to the requestors: Records were provided, legal costs were covered and, in at least one case, the custodian apologized. The problem is that these settlement wins do not set a legal precedent that can be cited by others, although they do add credibility to threats of legal action.
Last year, Kamenick sued the Madison Police Department on my behalf after it told me to expect a wait time of 14 months to obtain records related to police discipline. The office hired additional staff and authorized overtime to reduce its backlog. Last month, Kamenick sued the Racine County Sheriff’s Department on behalf of a local resident, Mitchell Berman, over its long delays in producing records including video footage. “Delays like this are all too common,” Kamenick noted in a statement.
Custodians often contend they lack the staff and resources to handle requests more promptly. Kamenick’s response is to say it isn’t a question of resources but priorities. One school district he sued had a $600 million budget and assigned a single staff position devoted to records requests, then allowed that position to go unfilled.
Indeed, the records law expressly states that handling records requests “is declared to be an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties of officers and employees whose responsibility it is to provide such information.” That means it should be more of a priority.
Eventually the courts should weigh in on this, in a precedent-setting case. The problem also cries out for a legislative solution. A revised law could still say “as soon as practicable and without delay,” but also set a time limit of, say, 30 days, for records to be provided, absent extraordinary circumstances. Perhaps the state could provide additional funding or guidance to help make this doable — certainly there are worse ways it could spend its $4.6 billion budget surplus.
There is an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied; the same is true for records requests. If you don’t get the records until you can hardly remember what you wanted them for, the law is not working as intended.
Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Bill Lueders, a writer in Madison and editor-at-large of The Progressive, is the group’s president.
Login
