WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday denied the Trump administration’s emergency request to implement a rule that would terminate gender-affirming care for transgender people incarcerated in federal prisons. 

It means a lower court order that blocked the policy from going into effect will remain in place for now, and gender-affirming healthcare for transgender inmates will continue. 

“This is a critical ruling for our clients and all transgender people in Bureau of Prisons custody,” Li Nowlin-Sohl, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, said in a statement. “The denial of medically necessary health care, including gender-affirming health care, to people in prison is a violation of their fundamental constitutional rights.”  

The order did not give an explanation. But conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas noted that they would have sided with the Trump administration’s request to stop treatments by lifting a lower court’s injunction. 

The block has been in place since June 2025 by the District Court for the District of Columbia.

The suit stems from President Donald Trump’s executive order that prevented the Bureau of Prisons from providing gender-affirming care to transgender inmates.

In response, the American Civil Liberties Union sued, representing roughly 1,000 transgender inmates who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which is treated with gender-affirming care such as hormone therapy and other care. 

The class action lawsuit was filed first by two transgender men and one transgender woman at federal prisons in Florida, Minnesota and New Jersey.

The suit argued that the policy violated the Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. 

In a brief to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration argued that it rejects recommendations from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, previously followed by the Bureau of Prisons. The Department of Justice contended the recommendations “did not reflect the latest scientific information,” and that the prior policy “raised security and prison-administration concerns that outweighed whatever limited benefits they had.”

Reading Time: 10 minutes

Wisconsin’s controversial 2011 law that severely restricted public employee unions, known as Act 10, is headed for a reckoning with the Nov. 3 election and the liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court poised to determine its future.

The law is one of many points of disagreement between the two candidates for governor. Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany has defended the law, saying repeal would place more of a burden on taxpayers. Tiffany also voted for Act 10 while he was in the Legislature. His Democratic opponent Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley has called for a repeal of Act 10.

However, a governor cannot repeal Act 10 alone. Whether its restrictions are rolled back would also depend on the party in power in the Legislature, adding additional stakes to the upcoming legislative elections as Democrats try to take control of the Senate and Assembly for the first time since 2010. 

Democratic leader Sen. Dianne Hesselbein, D-Middleton, said Senate Democrats support restoring collective bargaining rights. The caucus is still discussing what it would do about public employee health insurance and pension contributions that increased under Act 10, Hesselbein said.

“Collective bargaining works,” Hesselbein said. “It works for the state of Wisconsin. I’ve seen it work for (Dane County) and I’m really looking forward to seeing it work for the state of Wisconsin again.” 

A lawsuit heading to the Supreme Court may also lead to major changes to the law. If the court upholds a 2024 Dane County Circuit Court decision that invalidated parts of the law, it could potentially overturn some restrictions on collective bargaining for public sector employees. The Court of Appeals overturned the circuit court ruling in July, setting up a Supreme Court showdown in the coming months.  

The bill’s introduction in 2011 drew as many as 100,000 protesters to the state Capitol and sparked an unsuccessful attempt to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker. A conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the law in 2014. But Democrats have helped elect five of the Supreme Court’s seven justices. They also have held the governor’s office since 2018, though have yet to hold both chambers of the Legislature.

Public opinion on Act 10 remains divided along party lines. In an Aug. 26 Marquette Law School Poll conducted after the Aug. 11 primary election, 54% of Wisconsin registered voters said they wanted collective bargaining for public employees restored to what it was prior to Act 10 while 43% said they want to keep the law as is. 

The divide was especially evident among political parties, with 84% of Democrats favoring the restoration of collective bargaining while 65% of Republicans opposed a repeal. Independents were more closely split, with 50% supporting the law and 46% favoring repeal.

Nonpartisan experts say the effects of a repeal would depend heavily on the specific provisions lawmakers change, how court cases interpret it and how employees and employers respond after a repeal.

What Act 10 changed

In 1959, Wisconsin became the first state to formally authorize public sector employees to bargain with their employers. More than 50 years later, Act 10 significantly reduced those rights, changing how public employees negotiate their wages, contracts and other working conditions.

Act 10 largely eliminated collective bargaining for most public employees and required public workers to contribute more toward their pensions and health insurance. It also put stricter certification requirements on unions, making it more difficult for them to remain certified. 

The changes did not apply to public safety unions representing police and firefighters, which is one of the key issues being raised in the latest court challenge.

Before Act 10, public employees could bargain over wages, vacation days, pensions, mandatory breaks, promotions, contracts and other work-related issues. 

Jason Stein, president of the Wisconsin Policy Forum, said local governments, state agencies and school districts were required to sit down and bargain with unions over these subjects. If disputes arose, they would go to arbitration and mediation. Act 10 significantly changed that process. 

“There were these very real obligations that the state had to, and the local governments had to interact with these unions,” Stein said. “Now that’s — for many public employers — that’s not the case.”

He added that government bodies can now unilaterally adjust health care benefits, giving local government employers an “upper hand” in changing some working conditions. 

Act 10 also required unions to hold recertification elections every year. To recertify, unions had to receive a majority vote from all members, including those who did not vote.

Stein noted that contrasts with most democratic elections, where a candidate needs a majority of the people who actually show up to vote. Under Act 10’s union recertification requirement, however, nonvoters are counted as “no” votes. 

Stein said that made it difficult for unions to pass the annual recertification votes, causing many local unions to disband. He also noted that the only permitted subject of collective bargaining under Act 10 is a base wage increase up to the rate of inflation, diminishing the value of union membership. 

“So, it was tough to recertify your union to be the official bargaining voice for the employees, and then if you did that, there wasn’t a lot that the union could actually bargain for,” Stein said. “As a result of that, many unions didn’t even try to recertify; they just disbanded.”

Wisconsin’s public sector union membership rate fell by nearly 29 percentage points between 1985 and 2025 — the largest percentage decline of any state, according to a report from the Center for Economics and Policy Research. The report shows a significant drop coinciding with Act 10’s passage in 2011, with the public union membership rate falling from 46.6% in 2010 to 18.5% in 2025.

Stein said school districts have been the biggest exception, with many school district unions able to recertify and continue bargaining, but they’re still only able to bargain over base wage increases up to the rate of inflation. 

What could a repeal mean for public sector employees?

If Act 10 were repealed or struck down by the court, established unions could regain the ability to bargain over contracts and other agreements. However, unions whose certification or organizational structure lapsed under Act 10 could face a more complicated process.

Michael Childers, a University of Wisconsin-Madison School for Workers professor, said already certified unions would be able to bargain immediately while other unions would need to reorganize.

He noted that both unions and human resources staff involved in bargaining would need time to recertify and prepare for the resurgence of collective bargaining. 

“There’s going to be a huge gap, even for these unions who’ve been recertified, in terms of they don’t really have any bargaining experience or expertise per se, because nobody has done this for going on 15 years,” Childers said.  

A repeal of Act 10 would not immediately result in higher pay or benefits for public employees. 

If they did vote to form a union, they would then have to negotiate changes to their desired benefits, pay or other working conditions. Stein said any financial impact would also take time to develop and it would vary across the state.

What could a repeal mean for schools, local governments and taxpayers?

Republicans have raised concerns that a full repeal of Act 10 could increase costs for Wisconsin taxpayers because the law made major changes to health care and pension contributions. The bargaining process itself would also cost public bodies more time and money.

Tiffany emphasized the new costs that would be presented to local governments and school districts with a full repeal, estimating a $2 billion increase in taxes each year — an estimate stemming from a study by the conservative law firm Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty.

“(Local governments and school districts) would be forced to make devastating cuts or come back to taxpayers for more money,” Tiffany said in a statement. “Families are already dealing with higher property taxes, utility bills, and everyday costs. They cannot afford another massive tax increase.”

Crowley said he would work with the Legislature, unions and public employers, including school districts and local governments, to come up with a clear cost estimate for repealing Act 10. He disputed that there would be an immediate cost to taxpayers.

“Restoring bargaining rights does not mean every employee automatically stops contributing toward retirement or healthcare,” Crowley said in a statement. “How that works would depend on negotiated agreements.”

Act 10 shifted a greater share of pension costs onto public employees. Before the law, employers covered more than 99% of contributions to the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS). By 2020, employers covered about half, with employees paying the remainder — similar to private employers who match 401(k) contributions.

A Wisconsin Policy Forum analysis estimated that the increased employee pension contributions reduced state and local government costs by nearly $5.2 billion from 2011 to 2017. The estimate included only changes to pension contributions, not other provisions of Act 10, like increased employee contributions to health insurance premiums. 

A repeal would not necessarily mean those costs immediately return to the levels they were at before Act 10, and the financial impact would depend largely on how the law is repealed and what provisions are restored. 

Tyler Byrnes, senior research associate with the Wisconsin Policy Forum, said those costs would have to be negotiated. He said there could be increased costs for local governments and school districts because employees and employers would once again be able to negotiate over those issues.

Byrnes said it’s important to note that school funding is controlled by per pupil revenue limits and school funding formulas. Local government funding is also controlled by “relatively strict” levy limits.

“While repealing those required contributions would give the employers and the employees something more to negotiate over, they’re still subject to how much revenue the local government has,” Byrnes said. 

Municipalities are limited in how much they can spend based on how much revenue they have. Byrnes said it’s difficult to project exactly how costs would change, but if those limits remain in place, he said it’s unlikely there would be a massive increase in taxpayer costs immediately after a repeal. 

“Over time, that impact may increase. But immediately, it’s going to be difficult to start spending a ton more for a school district on employee benefits if you just don’t have the revenue,” Byrnes said. 

Hesselbein said if Democrats win the majority they would want to study the school funding formula with bipartisan input before making major changes.

Why Act 10 was passed

Byrnes said health care costs for government and private businesses were rising significantly before Act 10. He described how revenue could grow, but rising health care costs for existing employees could “eat up” that new revenue, creating a desire to address those costs.

He said there was also a desire to address pension costs. The state’s retirement system has been well funded, but some local governments didn’t have well-funded pensions. 

“This combination of pension costs and health care costs were really making it difficult to cover the cost of local government, and there was sort of a desire to address those,” Byrnes said. 

He also said some believed public employee unions had become too powerful. Union-affiliated organizations had spent heavily on Democratic candidates and liberal Supreme Court justices in the years leading up to Act 10. 

Act 10 shifted more health care and pension costs to public employees, eliminated automatic union dues and reduced union participation rates. 

What unions are looking for from state government 

Julius Shieh, communications specialist at SEIU Wisconsin — a union representing health care, property services and public school workers across the state — said that SEIU supports a full repeal of Act 10.

“All workers deserve the right to collective bargaining and a union, and our state should be protecting workers’ rights rather than attacking them,” Shieh said in a statement.

Jon Shelton, president of AFT-Wisconsin — a labor union representing members of the public K-12 system, state agencies, technical colleges and the Universities of Wisconsin system — said Act 10 had a significant impact on members because it limited public sector employees’ ability to negotiate salaries and working conditions. 

“We’ve seen a lot of K-12 teachers, in particular, either leave the profession, or work multiple jobs, or end up even going to neighboring states where salaries are higher,” Shelton said. “It’s really diminished our education system in the state from top to bottom.” 

He said he has also heard from workers about how the law affected the way they are treated in their workplaces. 

“The biggest thing that I hear from workers across the state … is the lack of professional discretion — the way that workers have been cut out of the conversations,” Shelton said. “It’s been to the detriment of the education system. It’s harmed our students.”

He said the law has affected class sizes and student resources and has given administrators more control over which positions are filled. He also said seniority and experience can sometimes be disregarded. 

“Having administrators who are nowhere near the classroom basically mandates which kinds of professional developments teachers and other professionals engage in often means that teachers don’t get the kind of training that they actually need to be able to effectively work with students,” Shelton said. “It’s not an exaggeration to say that student learning conditions have been significantly hampered by 15 years of Act 10.”

Shelton said AFT-Wisconsin believes public employees are entitled to full bargaining rights and expects the next governor and Legislature to restore those rights to public employees across Wisconsin. He said the organization would also want a larger conversation about pensions and health care contributions and wouldn’t expect those to immediately change. 

The Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state’s largest teachers union and one of the leading organizers of the massive protests that rocked the Capitol in 2011 after Act 10 was introduced, declined to comment for this story.

Crowley has been endorsed by more than a dozen unions including SEIU Wisconsin, WEAC and AFT-Wisconsin. Tiffany has been endorsed by three public safety unions, including the Milwaukee and Kenosha police unions. 

What happens next?

Any legislative changes to the law would likely require Democrats to take control of the Assembly, Senate and governor’s office. If the Supreme Court strikes down the law and Republicans control the Legislature and governor’s office, they could try to make changes to address any constitutional issues. Split control of government wouldn’t likely lead to legislative changes either way.

If Act 10 is repealed or overturned, it would not immediately change every public employee’s wages, benefits or other working conditions. In many cases, unions would first have to reorganize or recertify, and employers and employees would then have to negotiate new agreements. 

At the same time, restoring bargaining rights could eventually give public employees more ability to negotiate over compensation and working conditions, while potentially increasing costs for some public employers and taxpayers, according to Stein.

Stein called Act 10 “one of the most litigated aspects of public policy” since it passed in 2011, saying it hasn’t been one continuous lawsuit but multiple. 

In July, a state appeals court upheld Act 10 after a Dane County Circuit Court ruled parts of Act 10 as unconstitutional in 2024. The case is now being sent to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. 

The lawsuit argues that Act 10’s different treatment of public safety employees and other public employees violates the Wisconsin Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

“A lot of (the permanence of Act 10) depends ultimately on elections,” Stein said, “whether that’s elections that determine the composition of the state Supreme Court or elections that determine the composition of the Legislature.”

Wisconsin Watch reporter Brittany Carloni contributed to this report.

Wisconsin’s controversial anti-union law faces a reckoning this fall. Here’s what that could mean. 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.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer indicated Wednesday that should Democrats regain control of the chamber following the elections, they plan to block judicial nominees sent up by President Donald Trump, including for any possible vacancies on the Supreme Court. 

“Look, the bottom line is, one of the reasons that we want to do everything we can to take back the Senate is not let Trump put such horrible justices, MAGA justices, on the Supreme Court and the lower courts,” he said.  

Trump nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett during his first term but has yet to nominate anyone to the country’s highest court during his second term. 

Schumer’s comments signal that even if one of the nine Supreme Court justices retires or potentially passes away, Democrats would hold the vacancy open until after the next presidential election. 

That would be somewhat similar to Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell’s decision to block Merrick Garland from a Senate confirmation vote in 2016 after President Barack Obama nominated Garland to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. 

McConnell, then majority leader in a GOP-controlled chamber, said on March 16, 2016, “the next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course — of course — the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction.”

“It is a president’s constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate’s constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent,” he added.  

Democrats, including Schumer, rebuked McConnell for the decision. 

Schumer predicts close election

To make the choice about whether to approve any nominees during the next session of Congress, Democrats will need to regain the Senate majority. They now have 47 seats.

Schumer said during the press conference he expects it to be a close election, declining to say how many seats he expects Democrats to pick up. 

“We do not want to be overconfident, but what we’re seeing in state after state after state is that people are sick of Trump,” he said. “They’re sick of the Republican Senate going along with him. And they see the clear divisions we have drawn between what we stand for and what they stand for. That has put us on the edge of victory. But we still got a ways to go.”

Democrats need a net gain of at least four Senate seats to regain the majority.

The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter rates North Carolina as leaning in Democrats’ direction, with Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Ohio and Texas, all currently held by a Republican, rated as toss-ups. The open races in Michigan and New Hampshire, which were won by a Democratic candidate last time, are also rated as toss-ups. 

Democratic priority to ‘lower people’s costs’

Aside from blocking Trump nominees, Schumer didn’t detail what types of bills Democrats may put on the Senate floor, should voters give them the majority in the upper chamber. 

“We’re going to do everything we can to lower people’s costs. You’ve seen some of the things Trump’s done that’s raised costs,” he said. “We’re going to do everything we can to clamp down on this horrible corruption and to end the chaos and end the war.”

Schumer declined to answer a question about whether he believes he would get the support needed from other Democrats to remain their leader, given critical comments from some of the more left-leaning candidates who could be elected this November.

“Our caucus is totally unified. We’re in great shape. Everyone is really very, very pleased with where we are today compared to where we were 20 months ago, under our leadership,” he said. “And we’re fighting hard. And we’re on the edge of taking back the Senate.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday granted, for now, the Trump administration’s request to continue rapid third-country deportation of immigrants to countries not their own. 

The decision will allow the Trump administration to carry out its aggressive deportation method of quickly removing immigrants to one of the countries — some with human rights concerns — the administration has agreements with to take third-country removals from the United States. 

The high court will hear oral arguments in December, and directed the parties to answer several questions including if the district court has jurisdiction over the issue, if the lower court can deliver classwide relief and whether the Trump administration’s rapid third-country removal policy is lawful. Tuesday’s order will remain in effect until the justices reach a decision in the case.

The three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, noted they would have denied the emergency request.

The lower court’s order did not bar third-country removals, but prevented the deportation from occurring unless adequate time was given for a noncitizen to verify that they would not face harm in the third country.

Third-country removals are when a noncitizen is deported from the U.S. to a nation other than that person’s home country. It occurs when the home country of a person with a removal order from the U.S. does not accept the person’s repatriation. 

A district court and appeals court found that immigrants must have an opportunity to challenge their removal to a country where they do not have citizenship if they fear for their safety or if they might be returned to their home country where they could experience harm.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration Thursday made an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to allow for rapid third-country deportations of noncitizens to continue, after an appeals court blocked the policy last week.

In a brief, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the high court to temporarily halt the appeals court’s order. The court panel struck down an administration policy that quickly removed noncitizens to countries where they do not have citizenship.

The appeals decision found that immigrants must have an opportunity to challenge their removal if they fear for their safety.

Sauer argued that a stay, or pause, is needed because the lower court’s decision to block the policy interferes in diplomatic relations with countries that have agreed to accept citizens that are not their own. 

“Third-country removals require careful negotiation with foreign governments, which are rarely enthusiastic about accepting foreign citizens (especially criminals), and often requires obtaining travel documents and devoting significant manpower to the staging of flights to protect government officers and flight crews,” he wrote. 

“Disruption of those plans thus imposes massive costs on the government and invariably requires new rounds of diplomatic engagement with countries who may be all the more skeptical of our removal efforts given the disruption,” Sauer said.

Third-country removals, deportations from the United States to a nation other than an immigrant’s home country, occur when the home country does not accept the person’s repatriation. 

This is the second time the Trump administration has taken an emergency request to the high court regarding third-country removals. The Supreme Court in June 2025 temporarily allowed for the removals to continue, before sending the case back to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 

Last week’s decision from the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit did not bar the Trump administration from carrying out removals to third countries but it provided for a longer process. 

It allowed immigration officers to still conduct third-country removals if they follow the proper procedures, such as adequate notice and an opportunity for an immigrant to raise a fear-based claim about being taken to that country of removal.

The Supreme Court ordered the parties to submit briefs by Monday. 

An attorney who spit on a black teenager during a 2020 protest has had her law license suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The order states Stephanie Rapkin's conduct "seriously adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law."

The post Law license of attorney who spit on Black teen during 2020 protest suspended appeared first on WPR.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled this week that it would not suspend the legal license of former Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, who was convicted earlier this year of obstructing federal agents trying to make an immigration arrest in the county courthouse. 

In an order released Wednesday, the Court overruled the request of the state Office of Lawyer Regulation to suspend her license on the grounds that she was convicted of a “serious crime.” Wisconsin’s court rules state attorneys found guilty of a serious crime can have their licenses suspended until their disciplinary proceedings are complete. 

Dugan was convicted of one felony count of endeavoring to obstruct a pending proceeding after helping an undocumented man appearing in her court briefly evade federal agents. The case drew national attention and in July she was sentenced to pay a $5,000 fine. 

The Supreme Court suspended Dugan from her position as a circuit court judge in April 2025, shortly after she was arrested. 

In its Wednesday order, the Court found that “in its exercise of its discretion … a summary suspension of Attorney Dugan’s license to practice law is not warranted under the facts of the matter.” 

The two conservatives on the Court, Brian Hagedorn and Annette Ziegler, dissented from the order. 

Ziegler wrote that the standard practice of the Court has historically been to suspend attorneys convicted of crimes to expedite the investigation of the Office of Lawyer Regulation. She also questioned why the majority wouldn’t act to discipline Dugan for her actions. 

“These charges concerned then-Judge Dugan, in her capacity as a circuit court judge, wearing a judicial robe, at the courthouse, obstructing federal agents,” Ziegler wrote. “I am confounded by our court’s inaction.”

Members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court seemed open to redrawing the state's U.S. House districts during oral arguments for two lawsuits claiming the current congressional map is gerrymandered.

The post Wisconsin justices hear congressional gerrymandering arguments appeared first on WPR.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in two cases challenging the constitutionality of the state’s congressional maps. One challenge is based on the claim that the maps unfairly benefit Republicans and the other is on the grounds that the maps are intentionally anti-competitive to protect incumbents. 

Both cases were previously dismissed by panels of three circuit court judges. In both, the Court is not deciding the merits of the arguments but determining if the circuit panels were correct to dismiss the cases. If the Court determines that the dismissals were incorrect, the cases will be sent back to the circuit court level for discovery and trials on the merits of the argument. 

Because of that process, neither case will change Wisconsin’s maps ahead of this year’s midterm elections, but could install new maps ahead of the 2028 elections. 

Wisconsin’s congressional maps were instituted by the Court in 2022 after Gov. Tony Evers and the Republican-controlled Legislature were unable to reach a compromise on new maps. In that case, the Court installed a “least change” principle in which the newly proposed maps had to match as closely as possible to the maps instituted in 2011 — which were widely considered to be the most gerrymandered in the country. 

The maps selected by the Court in 2022 were drawn by Evers, but followed the least change standard. Democrats and fair maps proponents have argued the least change standard poisoned the maps while Republicans have said the argument falls flat because a Democratic governor created them. 

Wisconsin’s congressional maps have repeatedly been challenged since the initial 2011 gerrymander and since the 2022 update. 

In the first part of the day, the Court heard the arguments of the partisan gerrymandering challenge, in which attorney Abha Khanna said that the Wisconsin Constitution’s equal protection clauses give voters in the state protection against maps designed to benefit one party. 

“Was partisan vote dilution the predominant purpose? Was that in fact the effect of the map, and is there any legislative justification outside of sheer partisan dominance that would justify the configuration of these districts?” Khanna said. 

A trio of attorneys argued in favor of the existing congressional maps, saying that the lawsuit was brought so late in the decade it can’t be litigated in the courts anymore, that if the Court wants to rule that partisan gerrymandering isn’t allowed then this case isn’t the right one and that the lawsuit doesn’t give a good enough standard for assessing what counts as an extreme partisan gerrymander. 

During the first arguments, the two conservative justices on the panel expressed skepticism with the claim that the state Constitution protects against partisan gerrymandering. 

“I actually don’t care what happens in other states. I don’t care at all. I care about our Constitution and our laws and what our law says,” Justice Brian Hagedorn said. 

“I know that some states have explicit prohibitions against partisan gerrymandering, however that’s defined. I don’t know what that means,” he added. “But you’re asking for us to just invent a new right that has never been recognized, that even though our founders were well aware of it, as even your own brief recognizes, from the time of our founding, but have never addressed. And you’re appealing to just democratic self-governance, not our actual Constitution, your just sense of what democracy ought to protect.”

The Court’s liberal majority appeared to give some deference to the argument that the lawsuit didn’t properly set up how to assess the extent of a partisan gerrymandering claim, but often got into extended back and forths over the harm that partisan gerrymandering represents. 

Luke Berg, one of the attorneys arguing to protect the existing maps, said in an exchange with Justice Chris Taylor that partisan gerrymandering “doesn’t implicate the right to vote.” 

“How can you say that there is no remedy if it’s demonstrated that partisanship has led to the dilution of the disfavored group’s vote?” Taylor said. “It makes no sense to me, if our whole government is derived from the people, and the power that they give is through the vote, that’s how the people give the power to the government. And so if their right to vote is diluted because of partisanship, I just don’t understand why you’re saying we have no ability as a state court to remedy that.” 

Khanna said Republicans, including some of the attorneys arguing the case in Madison on Wednesday, have made the exact opposite arguments in other states and that they’ve argued map opponents aren’t following the proper process no matter which process is followed. 

“What we’ve seen from just the last couple of years, and frankly, from this argument, where intervenors have said, ‘Oh no, you can’t do this. Oh, you can’t reopen Johnson. Oh wait, you can’t hear this original action. Oh wait, you can’t appoint a three-judge panel. And now that you have appointed a three-judge panel, you can’t hear this appeal,’” she said. “These are just part and parcel of their strategy, which has been to draw this out, and now they say, ‘you know what? The decade’s almost over. There’s really nothing more that this court can do.’”

In the second part of the day, attorney Nicholas Stephanopoulos argued that the congressional maps are illegally anti-competitive. 

“Our position here is a straightforward one,” he said. “Wisconsin’s Constitution does not tolerate officeholders entrenching themselves in power and cutting out the people by suppressing electoral competition.”

But liberal and conservative members of the Court appeared confused by the distinction between a map that is anti-competitive and a map that is gerrymandered to benefit one party. 

“Because it seems to me that what’s underlying that is that the district lines are drawn in such a way to have it be a foregone conclusion that a particular party will win that district, and so I don’t see a whole lot of airspace between this claim and the partisan gerrymandering claim,” Justice Susan Crawford said. 

Stephanopoulos said the difference is that a map drawn to be anti-competitive isn’t concerned with which party wins. 

“It’s relevant what the odds of re-election would be for a candidate, but the anti-competitive theory is uninterested in which party actually,” he said. 

But opponents argued that designing maps to be as competitive as possible comes with trade-offs that might not be ideal. 

“There is a fundamental tension when you maximize for competitiveness or you increase for competitiveness, you are taking away other legitimate values such as representation, such as incumbency protection, such as bipartisan agreement,” Misha Tseytlin, an attorney for Wisconsin’s Republican members of Congress, said. “If you make a map more competitive, then you make it less likely that their incumbents will retain their seats. You also make it more likely that a larger number of the constituents of a particular district are going to be unhappy with the result. There is a legitimate policy dispute as to whether more competitiveness or more representation, incumbency protection is better. Nothing in the Constitution’s text, history, or discourse precedent settles that question as a matter of text.”

The Trump administration will comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s order this week blocking new restrictions on mail voting for this year’s elections, but President Donald Trump was right to attack the ruling, U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said during a wide-ranging White House press conference Tuesday.

Concerns about the dangers of artificial intelligence are overstated, military action in Iran is not a war and the justices wrongly decided the case in which the Justice Department argued in defense of a U.S. Postal Service rule overhauling vote-by-mail requirements before the election, Blanche told reporters during a roughly half-hour briefing in the White House Rose Garden.

Blanche, who was Trump’s personal attorney before joining the government, began the press conference praising federal prosecutions of terrorism and election fraud suspects. 

But he quickly transitioned into a broad defense of recent Trump actions and administration policies.

The Trump administration will continue prioritizing “election security” ahead of this year’s midterms, despite its setback at the Supreme Court on the proposed mail voting regulation, he said. 

“Of course we’re going to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision, as we always do,” he said. 

“That doesn’t mean that we’re not going to do everything in this administration that we can to make sure that there are free and fair elections,” he added. “There’s this constant pressure and this effort by the media and mostly by Democrats that somehow doing that is a bad thing. Everybody should want that.”

Trump’s morning Truth Social post articulating regret over nominating some Supreme Court justices who have ruled against him was “what a democracy is about,” Blanche added.

“As far as President Trump’s Truth about about the justices, he is very frustrated, and … he has every right, and, indeed, he should communicate his concerns with the Supreme Court whenever he has them,” Blanche said. 

“I am also upset about the Supreme Court decision. But the idea that President Trump shouldn’t be allowed to communicate to the American people his frustration, I don’t share that.”

While opining on a host of issues, Blanche declined to comment on potential criminal investigations, including when asked about Minnesota Democratic U.S. Rep Ilhan Omar and longtime public health official Anthony Fauci.

AI as campaign issue

Anxiety about artificial intelligence “conveniently became a flashpoint this week,” Blanche said, suggesting Democrats sought to ramp up discontent ahead of Nov. 3 midterm elections to determine control of Congress.

Asked about how AI should be regulated and if development should be slowed, Blanche said the Department of Justice’s mission is to prosecute, not regulate. 

But he echoed Trump’s comments this week that U.S. companies should press forward with the technology to remain competitive with China.

Political figures from both parties have commented on AI policy following a call by the chief executives of top companies for a development slowdown amid disclosures the technology could pose an existential threat to humanity.

“When the leaders of the top AI companies are sounding the alarm about the potential for imminent threats, we need to take them seriously,” Hawaii Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz said Tuesday. 

“This is an emergency, and we need to treat it like an emergency. If the risk of AI is anywhere near the level that it has been characterized to be, then we have an obligation to act on a bipartisan basis immediately.”

In the Rose Garden, Blanche questioned whether Democrats were raising the issue in good faith or for an electoral advantage.

“Every Democrat senator suddenly races to a microphone to talk about AI after being eerily silent for months and months and months,” he said. “So to talk about the timing of this as being nothing but an effort to to influence the midterms, I shouldn’t have to say that out loud. Of course, that’s what it is. And that shouldn’t be what drives the decisions that we’re making around AI. We can’t lose the AI race to China, right?”

Hegseth ‘phenomenal’

Asked about the articles of impeachment Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie introduced Tuesday against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, objecting to continued military action in Iran even after the House passed a resolution calling for an end to the war, Blanche said Hegseth was doing “a phenomenal job.”

The Justice Department ensures that all Defense Department activity is lawful, Blanche said. 

He added that the conflict should not be categorized as a war.

“You called it a war,” he told the reporter who asked about the impeachment. “I disagree with that characterization, as does most of Congress.”

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday kept in place a lower court’s order blocking President Donald Trump’s embattled plan to place new restrictions on mail ballots for this year’s midterm elections.

The unsigned, one-paragraph order upheld a Massachusetts federal court’s injunction on a U.S. Postal Service rule until after Nov. 3 and did not decide whether the rule itself was lawful. But a majority of the court said the Democratic state officials and voting rights groups challenging the rule were likely to succeed.

Two of the court’s stalwart conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented from the decision. Alito wrote that the Postal Service has “broad authority to regulate the mail” and that at this preliminary stage of the suit challenging the rule, its policy should remain in place.

“I express no view on whether the Government would be likely to succeed on de novo review of the Postal Service’s powers,” he wrote. “But for now, the Government has satisfied its burden of making a strong showing that the plaintiff States’ … claim is not likely to succeed.”

In a brief concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the rule, which codifies technical requirements on the envelopes carrying ballots and requires states to collect and send to the federal government lists of eligible voters, may be legal, but was unworkable for the midterm elections 50 days away.

“There is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority,” he wrote. “But applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious …  because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.”

In a social media post Tuesday morning, Trump excoriated the decision, saying, without evidence, it would allow Democrats to use vote-by-mail to cheat.

“It is a big loss for Republicans, and America itself, and makes cheating by the Radical Left ‘Dumocrats,’ on Mail-In Ballots, a much easier thing to do – And now they have an open field to do so.” 

He also complained about other high-profile rulings that he lost and, without naming them appeared to aim particular ire at the justices he appointed to the court: Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

“This Supreme Court is bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left into making decisions that have set America back at least a hundred years,” he wrote. “These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves.”

Case continues

The rule’s challengers argued, in part, that the regulations would be impossible to install ahead of Election Day. Several election administrators, pro-democracy groups and others declared to the court that they agreed with that argument. 

The Postal Service did not bring any evidence against those claims.

Democrats and voting rights advocates also argued the rule was illegal and unconstitutional. The executive branch has virtually no role in elections administration, which is a state responsibility with congressional oversight under the U.S. Constitution, they said. 

The case, tried before President Barack Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, will continue to evaluate the legality of the rule for future elections.

Challengers react 

The groups and officials challenging the rule, as well as other Democrats, hailed the ruling in statements.

“Today’s order from our nation’s highest court makes clear that states cannot be forced to undermine their mail voting systems and risk voter disenfranchisement because of the President’s political agenda,” Massachusetts Attorney General Joy Campbell said. “Mail voting is safe, secure, and reliable, and I will continue to stand up for Massachusetts residents who rely on mail ballots to ensure that they can have their voices heard in the November election.”

Virginia Kase Solomón, the president and CEO of Common Cause, one of the groups suing to block the rule, called the decision “a major win for the millions of everyday Americans,” including elderly and rural voters, and those with disabilities, who depend on vote-by-mail.

“This executive order was a blatant power grab designed to silence voters and undermine our elections, but it failed because the people and the law were on our side,” she said in a statement. “Our Constitution is clear: states run our elections, and voters choose their leaders—not the other way around. No administration can strip the people of their power.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose state was the lead plaintiff in the case, said the rule was part of Trump’s “attacks on democracy” for the past 20 months.

“California stood up for democracy and we won,” Newsom wrote on social media. “Today is a good day for democracy, the rule of law, and the American people looking to exercise their Constitutional right to vote.”

Phil Weiser, Colorado’s attorney general and Democratic nominee for governor, said the court “just sent the message that President Trump and the Postal Service need to stay the hell away from our elections.”

California and Colorado are among the eight states that send ballots to every registered voter.

Spokespeople for the Postal Service and U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the administration in the case, did not respond to emails seeking comment late Monday.

Kenosha County District Attorney Xavier Solis had his license to practice law suspended Monday. The Office of Lawyer Regulation then reinstated the license Tuesday.

A memo issued by the state court system’s Office of Lawyer Regulation states that Solis’ suspension was for “willfully failing to cooperate with one or more OLR investigations into alleged misconduct.” 

The memo also states that Solis violated a Wisconsin Supreme Court rule that states that lawyers can have their licenses suspended if they’re under investigation by the OLR and don’t comply with deadlines to provide information. 

Solis, a Republican, was elected DA of Kenosha County in 2024 and had previously worked as a private defense attorney. 

Stephen Kelley, a spokesperson for the state court system, told the Wisconsin Examiner the only information available to the public is the rule Solis is alleged to have violated. 

State law requires district attorneys to have a valid law license, so Solis cannot currently perform the job. It’s not clear what the suspension will mean for Solis’ future in the seat. Under state court rules, an attorney suspension can be lifted if the suspended lawyer discloses what happened and cooperates with the investigation to the “reasonable satisfaction” of the regulators within 18 months. 

Deputy District Attorney Rosamaria Delgado is now serving as interim DA in Solis’ office. 

“Administrative staff of the Kenosha County District Attorney’s Office and I will continue to oversee the day-to-day operations of the office,” Delgado said in a statement to 620 WTMJ. “We have reached out to the State for direction. I will take over management and/or reassignment of District Attorney Solis’ caseload until such time as District Attorney Solis’ license to practice law is reinstated or, until further direction is received from the Governor’s Office.  At this time, no other information is available.”

Solis, who had no experience as a prosecutor when he was elected in 2024, has been the subject of criticism since taking office and has struggled to fill vacancies after experienced prosecutors resigned. He was previously sanctioned by a judge for filing briefs written using the assistance of artificial intelligence which “hallucinated” fake citations.

This story was updated on Tuesday, Sept. 15 to reflect the reinstatement of Solis’ law license.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin filed a new lawsuit challenging Wisconsin abortion restrictions Thursday, just days after the Wisconsin Supreme Court returned to work with a newly cemented 5-2 liberal majority in place.

The lawsuit, filed in Dane County against Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, argues that two Wisconsin laws violate the state constitution’s guarantee of personal liberty.

One of those laws requires people seeking abortions to wait 24 hours between requesting an abortion and receiving one. The other states that only licensed physicians may provide abortions; this limits a person’s ability to self-administer abortion drugs through telehealth.

“This case asks our court to recognize … that our constitutional freedom includes the ability to make deeply personal decisions about our reproductive health care without unnecessary government interference,” said Tanya Atkinson, the president of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, during a press briefing announcing the lawsuit.

The case names Ozanne as a representative of all Wisconsin district attorneys because they would prosecute violations of the rule that only physicians can administer abortions, said Diane Welsh, a lawyer for Planned Parenthood.

“Anywhere in the state where an abortion would be provided, there could be criminal charges for a person who’s not a physician,” said Welsh.

Lawsuits challenging Wisconsin’s abortion restrictions have been anticipated since Roe vs. Wade — which federally protected abortion access — was overturned in 2022, effectively throwing the issue back to the states. The most significant challenge was over a Civil War-era statute that had been interpreted as banning abortion in Wisconsin and that went back into effect when Roe was overturned.

That law was at the heart of campaigns to elect liberal justices to the state Supreme Court, and last year, the high court overturned the statute, allowing abortions to be administered within the state under certain restrictions.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court found that the 19th-century law had been superseded by a series of additional restrictions passed in the ensuing decades. Immediately, abortion advocates signaled they might challenge those restrictions.

Thursday’s announcement makes good on those possibilities. In the briefing, attorneys for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin argued that requiring a physician to be present during abortions and requiring a person to receive counseling and wait a full day before receiving abortion care are unnecessary and illegal barriers to health care access.

“Through this case, we are asking Wisconsin courts to recognize that these restrictions conflict with the freedoms and protections guaranteed to each of us under our state’s constitution,” said Atkinson. “It’s about whether our constitutional freedoms belong to each of us, or whether the government can make our most personal decisions for us.”

In a statement, a spokesperson for Wisconsin Right to Life said Planned Parenthood is seeking a “permanent constitutional shield” for abortion access.

“This lawsuit isn’t about access,” said Samantha Craig. “It’s about removing the last few guardrails standing between a woman and the procedure table. It is incredible to us that such basic protections for informed consent and women’s safety are disregarded for the sake of protecting Planned Parenthood’s abortion-first business model.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, which would have the final say in the case, has a definitive liberal slant that is all but guaranteed to be in place for years to come. Liberal Justice Chris Taylor, whose 10-year term began in August, was once a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood. Liberal Justice Susan Crawford, who was sworn in a year earlier, once represented the group as a private attorney.

This story was originally published by WPR.

As Wisconsin Supreme Court starts new term, Planned Parenthood challenges abortion restrictions 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.

The Democratic-led states and voting rights groups suing to block enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order to restrict mail-in voting warned in briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday the policy would have disastrous consequences for the upcoming midterm elections if it is allowed to move forward.

Less than two months before the Nov. 3 elections, at least two states have already begun sending ballots to voters, and officials in several others have voiced serious concerns that complying with the U.S. Postal Service rule this election cycle is impossible, opponents said.

The Democratic attorneys general of 23 states, the District of Columbia and the governor of Pennsylvania told the high court they strongly object to the Trump administration’s request that justices allow the rule to move forward.

“Whatever else may be said of USPS’ new rule, it would wreak havoc on States and their voters if it takes effect at this late point—when some States, including North Carolina and Wisconsin, have already begun to mail out ballots,” they wrote.

Only Democratic state officials have sought to challenge the rule in court, but Wednesday’s brief noted that top elections officials in the Republican-led states of Utah, Florida and Ohio have also warned the rule would cause “catastrophic harms.”

The suit, now at the Supreme Court, was brought by the attorneys general of California, Massachusetts, Nevada, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin, along with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

“Allowing USPS’ new rule to take effect would be virtually certain to prevent many millions of Americans from casting mail ballots in this fall’s elections,” opponents wrote.

The record in the Massachusetts federal court that issued the preliminary injunction blocking the rule’s enforcement that the administration is seeking to overturn includes “unrebutted evidence” that “establishes that compliance with USPS’ rule would be impossible ahead of the midterms,” the state officials wrote.

Spokespeople for the White House, Postal Service and U.S. Department of Justice, which is representing the Trump administration in the case, did not respond to messages seeking comment Wednesday.

The case is on what’s known as the court’s emergency docket, and it’s not clear when a decision on whether or not to keep the preliminary injunction in place will be issued.

Voting rights groups echo Dems

A coalition of voting rights groups also filed a response Wednesday, making similar arguments.

The groups, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized the likelihood of disenfranchisement for many of the roughly 50 million voters set to receive ballots from the states challenging the rule.

Even if the mail specifications under the rule could be met in time for the election, the online portal the Postal Service has rushed to develop is not ready, the challengers wrote. 

Several friend-of-the-court briefs also made that argument, including the federal employee whistleblower who reported last week that the portal’s rushed development would lead to numerous errors if used this election. 

As of late last week, states had not yet been given access to the portal, which is supposed to be the mechanism for verifying compliance with the rule, even as some began mailing ballots.

“USPS’s Rule gives states mere weeks to implement sweeping changes to their election systems—even though USPS has not yet established the necessary infrastructure to administer its new requirements,” they wrote. “The Rule would disrupt the administration of mail voting mid-election and disenfranchise eligible voters nationwide, including voters in all-mail states like Colorado and Utah and elderly, rural, and disabled voters who must vote by mail.”

Beyond Postal Service power

In addition to the impossibility of states’ complying with the Postal Service rule, which places new requirements on ballot mail and requires states to transmit voter data to the federal government, less than two months before Election Day, the regulation impedes states’ constitutional authorities and oversteps the executive branch’s powers, the state officials and groups wrote.

The U.S. Constitution specifies that administering elections is a state responsibility, though Congress may pass laws governing certain elements. The executive branch has virtually no role unless specifically delegated by Congress, the rule’s challengers wrote.

And Congress never passed a law to give the Postal Service the kind of power over election mail that the rule claims, they said.

“To the contrary, Congress has exhaustively enumerated the types of materials that USPS can lawfully refuse to deliver,” the state officials wrote. “Ballots are not among them.”

The rule bans postal workers from delivering ballots that do not meet any of the conditions specified in the rule, including pre-approval of envelope designs and lists of eligible voters that the administration plans to check against a citizenship database maintained by the Department of Homeland Security.

Outsiders weigh in

A flurry of 17 friend-of-the-court briefs hit the Supreme Court docket Tuesday and Wednesday. 

None sided with the administration.

The briefs, representing bipartisan former governors, state and local election officials, military voters, the Postal Service workers’ union, good government organizations, Democratic campaign groups and others all said the rule was impossible to comply with at this point in the election cycle.

“The late-breaking USPS Final Rule—which was promulgated mere months before the November 3, 2026 general midterm elections, and which mandates sweeping, costly, and burdensome changes to mail-in voting procedures—would prove disastrous for election officials and election administration,” local officials and the pro-democracy group Center for Election Innovation wrote. “And it would seriously undermine the upcoming elections.”

In another filing, a bipartisan group of current and former local and state election officials said it was impossible to comply with the rule this year. 

Their brief noted that many of their members were Republicans or represented Republican-majority districts and emphasized that they took no position on the rule’s legality. 

But they said implementing it now was infeasible and ran afoul of a Supreme Court principle that changes in election policy should not happen during or close to an election.

“The principle rests on incontestable facts about voters and about the people who run elections: that late changes breed confusion, that confusion keeps eligible voters from voting, and that a chaotic election erodes confidence in the result,” they wrote. They “therefore suggest only this: that the November 3, 2026 general election be conducted under the rules that were in place when the election’s administration began.”

The hotly contested U.S. Postal Service rule restricting mail-in voting usurps Congress’ authority, as well as states’ power to administer elections, more than 250 current and former members of Congress said in a filing to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

All 47 members of the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus, 199 current House Democrats and 15 former House Republicans signed the friend-of-the-court brief opposing President Donald Trump’s policy to add several requirements to mail ballots. 

The U.S. Constitution “is unambiguous” in empowering states to run elections, while Congress can enact laws to oversee elections generally, they argued.

“Congress has passed several laws regulating federal elections—though it has always done so surgically, deliberately leaving the States with considerable room to maneuver,” they wrote.

The executive branch has no role, they said. 

The Trump administration has argued the rule, published last month, requires only “modest” technical specifications for mail ballots and that states transmit lists of eligible voters to receive the ballots. The rule is a targeted measure affecting mail delivery, not elections, the administration says.

But the lawmakers say that argument fails. 

The agency cannot take action related to elections without a congressional directive, they wrote. Congress never wrote a law asking for the requirements included in the USPS rule, they said. 

Executive order

In this case, Trump spurred the Postal Service to write the rule in a March executive order, based on the unsubstantiated premise that vote-by-mail is vulnerable to fraud. 

That shows the rule is meant to address Trump’s concerns about election administration, not mail specifications, the lawmakers said.

“The integrity of our constitutional system depends on each branch keeping to its assigned role,” they wrote. “The Framers set up a two-part system that gave States default authority to regulate federal elections subject to Congress’s authority to override the States. The Framers did not provide the President with any authority to interfere in that system, nor has Congress imbued the Executive Branch with any such authority by statute.”

Spokespeople for the White House, USPS and the Department of Justice, which is representing the Trump administration in the case, did not immediately return messages seeking comment Tuesday.

In a separate brief, the legal advocacy group the Society for the Rule of Law made a similar argument, saying the federal postal law the administration has cited provides only broad language that does not empower the agency to regulate election mail.

“The non-election, boilerplate … provisions on which Applicants rely are not a secret, alternative way for the USPS to bar ballot mail, conditionally or otherwise, on the eve of election day,” the group wrote. “Under the federalism presumption and the major question doctrine, the USPS needed a clear statement of statutory authority.”

Rushed delivery

The rule would require technical elements such as unique barcodes on ballot envelopes. Elections experts say those requirements are unworkable in time for the fall’s midterm elections because states have already designed, printed and — in some cases — begun sending ballots.

The rule would also require states to send to the federal government lists of eligible voters, which would be checked against a Department of Homeland Security database to verify citizenship. 

The rule bans the Postal Service from delivering ballots to registered voters who are not verified through that method.

The online portal that the rule says states should use for this process has still, less than two months until Election Day, not been introduced to states. A whistleblower last week reported the rushed development has led to myriad problems with the tool, which could result in legitimate ballots being rejected.

Opponents, including more than 20 Democratic state officials and voting rights groups that sued to challenge the rule, say it would risk disenfranchisement for the millions of voters, including Trump, who vote by mail.

High court ruling pending

The rule has been the subject of rapidfire legal fighting over the past several weeks, and the Supreme Court is now weighing whether to overturn a Massachusetts federal judge’s order pausing the rule while litigation continues, after the Trump administration filed an appeal over the weekend.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Sunday asked the states and voting rights groups challenging the rule to file their response to the application by Wednesday at 4 p.m. Eastern.

That district court injunction from Judge Indira Talwani, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, held that the rule was likely unconstitutional and unlawful for reasons the members of Congress articulated Tuesday: The Constitution grants states and Congress the power to oversee elections and states would be harmed if they are forced to comply with the regulation before courts can determine its legality.

Reading Time: 7 minutes

The Wisconsin Supreme Court begins oral arguments in September under a new 5-2 liberal majority and faces a term that could feature politically charged cases, including those challenging the state’s congressional maps and seeking to restore collective bargaining rights for many public sector unions. 

The pending cases before the high court so far, and other legal issues that may arise over the course of the term, provide ample opportunity to observe how the justices operate under a new liberal supermajority, court watchers said. Will they accept more cases following a streak of fewer decisions in recent years than in prior terms? How will the justices respond in real time to election issues during the midterms? Will they change the long-standing approach the court uses to interpret state statutes?  

“Now that there is a clear majority, not just a one-vote majority, it’s entirely possible that the justices will start to differentiate themselves from one another more,” said Chad Oldfather, a professor at the Marquette University Law School. “Because there’s less of a pressure to act as a bloc.” 

The high court’s liberal majority grew to five after Chris Taylor’s dominant April victory in the 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court race to replace conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley. Liberal justices have won five of the last six Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, shifting the court from a 5-2 conservative majority in 2018. 

The liberal wing includes Taylor, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky and justices Rebecca Dallet, Janet Protasiewicz and Susan Crawford. The conservatives include justices Annette Ziegler and Brian Hagedorn, who is often a swing vote.

“I’m guessing that it’s going to not seem like a 5-2 court this coming term,” said Alan Ball, a Marquette University professor who operates the SCOWstats blog that analyzes Wisconsin Supreme Court statistics. “Maybe like a 5-1-1: five liberals and then Ziegler is a conservative, and then Hagedorn, you know, who knows?” 

During the 2025 term, Hagedorn voted more often with the liberal wing of the court in split decisions than Crawford did in her first year as a justice, according to Ball’s review of the previous term. But Crawford aligned more with fellow liberals and Hagedorn with conservatives on more political issues, such as a case in the last term between Attorney General Josh Kaul and the Legislature over who controls settlement funds, Ball noted. 

Justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments in 16 cases across seven days between Sept. 8 and Oct. 13. More cases could rise to the high court over the course of the new term. 

What decisions will justices make about the congressional map?

Justices will hear oral arguments related to two lawsuits challenging Wisconsin’s congressional map on Sept. 16, but any decisions are not expected to impact the 2026 midterm elections, in which primary elections have already set up the candidates in races this November. 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court last November tapped two three-judge panels to hear the cases challenging the congressional maps as unconstitutional. One case, brought by a group of voters, argued the maps are a partisan gerrymander. The other case, brought by the Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy, argues the congressional maps are an anti-competitive gerrymander.

Both panels dismissed the challenges in separate rulings this spring, writing that only the high court could make decisions about the existing congressional maps. The voters and the business group appealed the decisions. 

The issues before the justices in September for the voter-brought case include whether Wisconsin’s constitution allows partisan gerrymandering and, for the Wisconsin Business Leaders case, whether the three-judge panel was wrong in considering “anti-competitive” and partisan gerrymandering as the same argument. 

Lucas Vebber, deputy counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, who is representing multiple intervenors in both maps cases, said their position remains that the Wisconsin constitution does not allow the groups in these cases to bring their gerrymandering claims. 

“This is a primary function of the Legislature,” Vebber explained. “Courts have a role to play, but they should stay within that role and not go beyond.” 

Jeff Mandell, general counsel for Law Forward, a progressive law firm representing the Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy in its case, said attorneys have asked the justices to issue a decision by the end of this year ahead of jury trial dates in April in that case.  

“If we’re able to hold that trial in April, that should provide time for the trial court to do its work, and for there to be an appeal if need be,” Mandell said. “And for there to be new districts that are constitutional for the 2028 congressional elections.” 

There would be no need for a trial if the high court affirms the three-judge panel’s dismissal, which would leave the existing maps in place. 

Will emergency election issues rise to the high court? 

While the court considers issues in the congressional maps case, legal experts say the stakes of the 2026 midterm elections make it likely that the justices could face potential fast-moving cases on voting and election-related issues. 

“We’ve had these fights over ballot boxes and whether you need to have a witness see your vote if you’re disabled. There was a whole issue of what has to be available for a disabled voter,” said Janine Geske, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice and professor at the Marquette University Law School. “Those kinds of things people can go right to the court and say ‘We’re going to bypass everybody. This is an emergency. We need the court to issue a ruling.’ I suspect, especially with all the talk of voting integrity or voting fraud … that we’re going to see that.” 

Recently, the high court ordered an expedited process for briefings in an appeal filed by the Democratic National Committee about a 2024 case that sought answers to whether a circuit court has the authority to extend hours at a polling location past 8 p.m.

The Waukesha-based 2nd District Court of Appeals this summer reversed a Walworth County judge’s order from the 2024 presidential election that allowed polling locations at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater campus to stay open until 10:30 p.m. on Election Day. The 2nd District in July reversed the decision, arguing it is up to the Legislature to determine polling hours. 

The court has yet to accept the DNC’s petition for review, but Ziegler questioned the majority’s motives in her lone dissent against speeding up the briefing process. The majority did not offer an explanation for expediting that timeline.

“We know not why this matter races to the front of the line. One would think further explanation would be forthcoming,” wrote Ziegler, who is not seeking reelection and is in her final year on the court. “One would think the majority would be more cautious to not appear to favor the political party that spent seemingly endless amounts of money to get them elected.” 

Will justices accept a case to restore pre-Act 10 collective bargaining rights? 

In late July, the 2nd District Court of Appeals reversed a 2024 Dane County Circuit Court ruling that restored collective bargaining rights for many public sector unions and employees. The unions in the case appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court less than three weeks later. 

The issues in this case stem from whether portions of Act 10 — the 2011 law signed by former Republican Gov. Scott Walker that spurred massive protests at the Capitol — that separate public safety and general public employees violate equal protection guarantees in Wisconsin’s constitution.

Geske said she sees a stronger argument in this case than past legal challenges to Act 10. But the justices will have to determine whether the court is held to previous opinions it has made related to Act 10, she said.

“I think that most of the justices who felt that are gone or no longer in the majority,” Geske said. 

Mandell, who is among the attorneys representing the unions in the case, said he expects the high court to decide whether to take the case sometime this fall. 

“If the court takes the case in the fall, then there’s ample time for it to be briefed and argued this term,” Mandell said. “Which means that by around the Fourth of July, we should have a final answer in Wisconsin about Act 10.” 

If the petition is accepted, the case would move forward without Hagedorn, who in January 2025 said he would not participate in the case. Hagedorn was chief legal counsel for Walker when Act 10 was drafted. 

What should courts use to interpret state laws? 

In a seemingly minor case about whether a former salesperson for a window company was eligible for unemployment insurance, the high court is expected to determine if it should use a new framework to interpret state statutes. 

For years, the courts have relied on a 2004 case that placed limits on when to use outside evidence, such as legislative history, to understand state statutes. Justices and legal experts have described the case, Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, as the most cited in Wisconsin Supreme Court history. 

The question before the high court is whether justices should take “a broader, holistic approach” to interpret state laws than what the Kalal case allows. 

“It’s really about how much we trust judges, or in this case, judges trust themselves to adequately or accurately assess things that legislators say,” Oldfather said. “Because the fear, of course, is that legislators will say self-serving things about what they pass into law.” 

The case has not been scheduled for oral arguments, but is among pending cases before the justices. Oldfather said it’s likely the majority will take the approach that Dallet wrote about in a 2021 case about conditions in a pollution discharge permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 

In 2021, Dallet wrote that the court’s approach to statutory interpretation should be “more comprehensive,” although she acknowledged that some sources may be more reliable than others.

“Such a holistic methodology would lead to more transparent analyses in which the court is upfront and honest about considering relevant extrinsic sources to interpret a statute’s meaning,” Dallet wrote in 2021. “That includes being transparent about those sources’ actual analytical value when they support more than one reasonable inference.”

Dallet brought up that approach again in a 2025 concurring opinion for a case that determined employees of University of Wisconsin hospitals and clinics did not have the ability to collectively bargain under Act 10. 

Bradley, who left the court in July, in the same 2025 decision criticized Dallet’s effort and said a “holistic” approach “would remove any remaining constraints on judicial overreach.” 

“It’s an open appeal for judges in this state to legislate from the bench,” Bradley wrote. “This court should stay the course and reject Justice Dallet’s invitation to unmoor the judiciary from the rule of law.”

Elections, Act 10 top list of hot-button issues facing Wisconsin Supreme Court’s new liberal supermajority 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.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, will not face criminal charges in Wisconsin for promising $1 million checks to voters during the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race.

La Crosse County District Attorney Tim Gruenke, a Democrat, who was tapped as a special prosecutor to review the case, wrote in a letter Tuesday that he did not believe a jury would convict Musk of a crime. 

“I have routinely worked with campaigns and candidates from both parties and nonpartisan elections to correct any potential violations of election/campaign laws,” Gruenke wrote. “In this case, without the famous name attached and the large dollar amounts involved, it is a simple case of a poorly worded statement that was corrected and brought into compliance with the law.”

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, the Democratic nominee for governor, said during a campaign stop in Madison he was “befuddled” by the decision.

Crowley, who said he had not read the reasoning behind the decision, was confused how Musk’s promises ahead of a 2025 event in Green Bay did not violate state laws. 

Wisconsin law prohibits a person from offering, promising, giving or lending anything of value to someone to convince the person to go to the polls, vote or refrain from voting. The Wisconsin Elections Commission in July found that Musk likely broke the law and referred complaints to the Brown County District Attorney’s Office, which earlier this month referred the case to Gruenke as a special prosecutor after identifying a conflict of interest. 

“We are talking about someone who publicly talked about giving a million dollars to folks to actually go vote, which is absolutely against the law here in the state of Wisconsin,” Crowley told reporters outside a health clinic in Madison.

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the Republican nominee for governor, did not immediately respond to questions from Wisconsin Watch Tuesday afternoon. 

Crowley on Tuesday did not say whether he would support additional legislation to strengthen the state’s election bribery laws.

“I would assume that our laws are very clear as far as the fact that we cannot give more than $1 to make sure that people are voting,” he said. “I think the laws are extremely clear.” 

Democratic state lawmakers last year proposed bills seeking to expand the state’s election bribery laws to prohibit payments to voters for signing petitions during an election, like in the Musk case. The legislation died without receiving a hearing in the Republican-controlled Legislature. 

The context 

About $144.5 million was spent on the 2025 election between now-Justice Susan Crawford and former Attorney General Brad Schimel, making it the most expensive state supreme court race in U.S. history. Musk spent about $30 million of that total, which included giveaways to conservative voters.

The issues stemmed from social media posts Musk made in March 2025. The first post promoted an event in Wisconsin in which Musk said entrance would be “limited to those who have voted in the Supreme Court Election” in addition to providing million-dollar checks to voters “in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.” 

Musk hours later shared a message that entrance was limited to people who signed a petition “in opposition to activist judges” and the million-dollar checks would be provided to spokespersons for the petition. 

Gruenke said he did not believe a jury would convict Musk given that nothing was given to individuals for voting.

“Even if I could convince a jury that the original post was still a bribe, I do not believe that a jury would convict Elon Musk of a crime after considering the intent, the second post, and the fact nothing of value was ever given to anyone for voting for an incident occurring in March of 2025,” Gruenke wrote. 

Musk still faces a civil lawsuit in Brown County Circuit Court brought by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign regarding bribery allegations tied to the 2025 state Supreme Court race.

Elon Musk won’t face criminal charges for offering voters $1 million checks during 2025 Supreme Court election 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.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.

What happened?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday lifted one of two injunctions against President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail voting, but additional legal hurdles and practical considerations could make it difficult to implement it in time for the quickly approaching November elections.

The unsigned ruling, which cut along ideological lines, focused on a relatively narrow legal question: whether the lower court’s injunction was premature. The majority made it clear that it was not deciding on the legality of Trump’s order as a whole, which is certain to be quickly challenged again in court as the administration moves to put its provisions in place.

“The court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful,” the majority wrote. “On that score, time will tell.”

The ruling, made in response to an emergency request, didn’t specify which justices had joined it. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who dissented, warned that the ruling would create a “Kafkaesque nightmare” that “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate dissent, joined by Justice Elena Kagan.

What’s the dispute?

Shortly after Trump issued his executive order in March, states, nonprofit organizations and Democratic Party committees filed multiple lawsuits seeking to block it. In June, in the case brought by states, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani found that some key provisions of the order were unconstitutional and blocked them from going into effect for this year’s elections.

Talwani issued an injunction specifically preventing the federal government from enforcing those provisions of the order against the 24 jurisdictions (23 states and the District of Columbia) whose attorneys general and governors brought the lawsuit. The list included most Democratic-led and swing states, including Arizona, California, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The Trump administration appealed, arguing the judge’s order was issued prematurely, before the Postal Service and other relevant agencies had finalized their plans to carry out the order’s provisions. The administration also argued that the injunction prevented it from implementing the order in the unaffected states because of the logistical impossibility of a bifurcated mail-voting system.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Talwani’s order in late July, prompting the administration to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the order and allow the agencies to act in time for the November election. In filings, the states warned that “the consequences of allowing such transformative changes to take effect so close to this fall’s elections would be extreme” and would disenfranchise voters.

On Aug. 11, Talwani issued a separate injunction against the order in the lawsuit brought by nonprofit groups, led by the League of Women Voters. The decision made it clear that her ban on implementing the law extended to all states, not just the 24 jurisdictions that brought the other lawsuit. That ruling again rejected the Trump administration argument that it was too soon to address the underlying issues.

The Trump administration again asked the Supreme Court to issue a ruling and make it clear that it would also apply to the Aug. 11 court order. If not, Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned in a court filing, it would require prolonged legal battles that would “effectively run out the clock” on the government’s ability to implement its plans.

On Friday, while the administration’s request was still pending before the Supreme Court, the Postal Service issued its final rules for implementing the order, which it said it would not put into effect for this November’s election unless and until the Supreme Court cleared the way.

The Supreme Court’s ruling addressed neither the second injunction nor the fact that the Postal Service had issued final rules, leaving observers to wonder about how those developments might affect what happens next.

“I expect that the trial court will now amend (the second) injunction and issue a new injunction that will stop USPS from implementing its now final rule. And that too may end up at the Supreme Court within a week,” wrote Rick Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA, on the Election Law Blog shortly after the ruling.

What happens now?

The Supreme Court’s ruling Monday will not be the final word on Trump’s executive order. The question before the Supreme Court was a relatively narrow one about whether Talwani issued her order prematurely, before the government had taken final action to carry out the executive order. The states and voting rights groups are likely to go back to court quickly to challenge the Postal Service and the final rules it issued last week.

Talwani has also not yet ruled on whether the order can go into effect for future elections, which she found would be premature. A parallel case involving consolidated challenges brought by nonprofit groups and Democratic Party committees is pending in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Should Trump’s executive order go into effect, it would mandate the creation of a series of lists. The Department of Homeland Security would be required to send each state a list of citizens over the age of 18. States using mail ballots would be required to send the federal government a list of all registered voters to whom they are sending mail-in and absentee ballots in key federal elections. The Postal Service’s final rule states that it will decline to deliver mail-in ballots in states that do not provide that list.

The order would also create new design standards and ballot-tracking requirements for mail ballots. Creating such a complicated process before November presents a huge challenge for the cash-strapped Postal Service.

Read more Votebeat coverage of Trump’s executive order on elections:

• Trump issues second executive order on elections, giving U.S. Postal Service unprecedented control over mail voting, March 31, 2026
• Trump administration sued by states over mail voting executive order, April 3, 2026
• One line in Trump’s order would reshape how long states have to store election records, April 6, 2026
• We still have questions about Trump’s new executive order on elections, April 6, 2026
• Two reminders that the rules of the 2026 election are still in flux, May 11, 2026
• Federal judge refuses to block Trump executive order on mail voting — for now, May 28, 2026
• USPS proposal to carry out Trump’s executive order could create new barriers to mail voting, May 29, 2026
• Trump’s moves to erect voting hurdles face race against the clock, June 15, 2026
• Federal judge blocks key pillars of Trump executive order restricting mail voting in 2026 election, June 25, 2026
• Trump administration asks federal judge to quickly lift ban on planned mail voting restrictions, July 2, 2026
• Trump is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow new mail ballot restrictions in the 2026 midterms, Aug. 3, 2026
• Federal judge blocks Trump’s efforts to restrict mail-in voting nationwide, Aug. 11, 2026

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat’s free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

What to know about the US Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s mail ballot restrictions 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.

One church congregation in New London includes many affected families. Its pastor said forcing people to return to Haiti is like “sending people to the butcher.”

The post How the loss of Temporary Protected Status is being felt by Haitian immigrants in Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

A state appeals court has upheld the landmark collective bargaining law known as Act 10, likely sending the case challenging the law to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The post Appeals court upholds Act 10, likely sending case to Wisconsin Supreme Court appeared first on WPR.