Reading Time: 3 minutes

The Wisconsin Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for the state to institute a ban on conversion therapy.

The court ruled that a Republican-controlled legislative committee’s rejection of a state agency rule that would ban the practice of conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ people was unconstitutional.

The 4-3 ruling from the liberal-controlled court comes amid the national battle over LGBTQ+ rights. It is also part of a broader effort by the Democratic governor, who has vetoed Republican bills targeting transgender high school athletes, to rein in the power of the GOP-controlled Legislature.

What is conversion therapy?

What is known as conversion therapy is the scientifically discredited practice of using therapy to “convert” LGBTQ+ people to heterosexuality or traditional gender expectations.

The practice has been banned in 23 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ+ rights think tank. It is also banned in more than a dozen communities across Wisconsin. Since April 2024, the Wisconsin professional licensing board for therapists, counselors and social workers has labeled conversion therapy as unprofessional conduct.

Advocates seeking to ban the practice want to forbid mental health professionals in the state from counseling clients with the goal of changing their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in March to hear a Colorado case about whether state and local governments can enforce laws banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children.

What is happening in Wisconsin?

Since April 2024, the Wisconsin professional licensing board for therapists, counselors and social workers has labeled conversion therapy as unprofessional conduct.

But the Legislature’s powerful Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules — a Republican-controlled panel in charge of approving state agency regulations — has blocked the provision twice.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the committee has been overreaching its authority in blocking a variety of other state regulations during Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ administration. That clears the way for the conversion therapy ban to be enacted.

Republicans who supported suspending the conversion therapy ban have insisted the issue isn’t the policy itself, but whether the licensing board had the authority to take the action it did.

Evers has been trying since 2020 to get the ban enacted, but the Legislature has stopped it from going into effect.

Evers called the ruling “incredibly important” and said it will stop a small number of lawmakers from “holding rules hostage without explanation or action and causing gridlock across state government.”

But Republican Sen. Steve Nass, co-chair of the legislative committee in question, said the ruling gives Evers “unchecked dominion to issue edicts without legislative review that will harm the rights of citizens.”

Legislative power weakened by ruling

The Legislature’s attorney argued that decades of precedent backed up their argument, including a 1992 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling upholding the Legislature’s right to suspend state agency rules.

Evers argued that by blocking the rule, the legislative committee is taking over powers that the state constitution assigns to the governor and exercising an unconstitutional “legislative veto.”

The Supreme Court agreed.

The court found that the Legislature was violating the state constitution’s requirement that any laws pass both houses of the Legislature and be presented to the governor.

The Legislature was illegally taking “action that alters the legal rights and duties of the executive branch and the people of Wisconsin,” Chief Justice Jill Karofsky wrote for the majority. She was joined by the court’s three other liberal justices.

Conservatives decry ruling

Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley said the ruling “lets the executive branch exercise lawmaking power unfettered and unchecked.” She and fellow conservative Justice Annette Ziegler said in dissents that the ruling shifts too much power to the executive branch and holds the Legislature to a higher legal standard.

“Progressives like to protest against ‘kings’ — unless it is one of their own making,” Bradley wrote.

Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, in a dissent, said the court’s ruling is “devoid of legal analysis and raises more questions than it answers.”

Hagedorn argued for a more narrow ruling that would have only declared unconstitutional the legislative committee’s indefinite objection to a building code rule.

The issue goes beyond conversion therapy

The conversion therapy ban is one of several rules that have been blocked by the legislative committee. Others pertain to environmental regulations, vaccine requirements and public health protections.

Environmental groups hailed the ruling.

The decision will prevent a small number of lawmakers from blocking the enactment of environmental protections passed by the Legislature and signed into law, said Wilkin Gibart, executive director of Midwest Environmental Advocates.

The court previously sided with Evers in one issue brought in the lawsuit, ruling 6-1 last year that another legislative committee was illegally preventing the state Department of Natural Resources from funding grants to local governments and nongovernmental organizations for environmental projects under the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program.

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

Wisconsin Supreme Court clears the way for conversion therapy ban to be enacted 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.

Chief Justice Jill Karofsky, shown here during oral arguments in January, wrote for four justices that laws empowering the Legislature's Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative rules violate the Wisconsin Constitution. (Screenshot/WisEye)

State laws that let a 10-member committee of the Legislature override regulations are unconstitutional, a majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The ruling hands the administration of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers a victory in an ongoing battle with the Legislature’s Republican leaders.

It also affirms that the state Legislature cannot renew its attempt to block regulations against conversion therapy for LGBTQ people, and appears to clear the way for an update of Wisconsin’s building code that was suspended nearly two years ago.

The ruling finds five statutes, granting power to the Legislature’s committee that reviews and periodically suspends administrative rules, violate the Wisconsin Constitution.

Taken together, wrote Chief Justice Jill Karofsky for the four justices making up the Court’s liberal wing, the statutes give the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules the power to effectively change state laws without going through the full legislative process.

“The ability of a ten-person committee to halt or interrupt the passage of a rule, which would ordinarily be required to be presented to the governor as a bill [to block the rule], is simply incompatible with Articles IV and V of the Wisconsin Constitution,” Karofsky wrote.

The Court’s three conservative justices took issue with the majority opinion, asserting that rulemaking itself involves legislative power and that Tuesday’s ruling improperly constrains the Legislature as the elected representatives of the people.

‘Legislative veto’ lawsuit 

The decision is the second to come from a lawsuit Evers filed in the fall of 2023, Evers v. Marklein, accusing the Republican leaders of the Legislature of exercising an unconstitutional “legislative veto” hampering the lawful powers of the executive branch to make administrative rules.

The Evers administration argued that five statutes granting JCRAR the power to review, object to and block rules before or after they are promulgated violate the state Constitution. Those include a law enacted in December 2018, after Evers was elected governor but before he took office, that allows the committee to lodge “indefinite” objections blocking a rule.

The Court majority agreed with the administration’s argument.

The Wisconsin Constitution requires that for a law to be enacted, it must pass both the Assembly and the Senate and then be presented to the governor to be signed or vetoed.

“By permitting JCRAR to exercise discretion over which approved rules may be promulgated and which may not, the statute empowers JCRAR to take action that alters the legal rights and duties of persons outside of the legislative branch” without going through the lawmaking process, Karofsky wrote.

The indefinite objection “prevents the agency from promulgating a rule unless the Legislature passes a bill enacting the rule,” she wrote. “Said another way, legislative inertia after an indefinite objection could permanently stop the promulgation of a rule.”

Evers, lawmakers, advocates praise Court’s ruling on regulations

The law allowing the committee to pause a rule for 30 days before it is promulgated “essentially allows JCRAR to capture control of agency rulemaking authority from the executive branch during the 30-day pause period,” Karofksy wrote.

The pause, which can be extended to 30 days “operates as a ‘pocket veto,’” she wrote. “Even if such an interruption is relatively brief, the constitution does not contemplate temporary violations of its provisions.”

Similarly, after the rule has been promulgated, JCRAR’s power to suspend it multiple times “means that even after promulgation, JCRAR could suspend a rule repeatedly in perpetuity with no other checks in place,” the chief justice wrote.

Clearing way for conversion therapy ban, new building code

In overturning the five statutes, the Court majority also revoked two earlier rulings that had affirmed some of JCRAR’s powers — one from 1992, upholding the committee’s temporary suspension of a rule, and the other from 2020, endorsing the power to suspend a rule multiple times.

Evers’ suit focused on two rules that JCRAR blocked, both produced under the umbrella of the state Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS).

One rule prohibited therapists from using discredited conversion therapy to try to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ people. It was adopted by the Wisconsin Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling, and Social Work Examining Board.

“When the Board created new professional conduct rules banning conversion therapy, it exercised its statutory authority,” Karofksy wrote. “But when JCRAR objected to the rule it effectively blocked the Board’s authority” under Wisconsin law “to govern the professional conduct of its licensees.”

The conversion therapy rule was suspended in January 2023, but reinstated after the Legislature concluded its work for the 2023-24 session.

With “the multiple suspension provision,” however, Karofsky wrote, “JCRAR has the authority to suspend this rule again, in perpetuity.”

Another rule updated the state commercial building code to international standards set in 2021.

“The goal of these chapters is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public,” Karofsky wrote. JCRAR’s indefinite suspension of the code in 2023  “prevented DSPS from completing its statutory rulemaking duties,” she wrote.

Conservative justices object

Justice Brian Hagedorn, one of three members of the Court’s conservative wing, wrote an opinion that concurred with the majority on narrow grounds but dissented on finding the five laws at issue unconstitutional.

The JCRAR indefinite objection to the building code rule is unconstitutional under a 1992 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, Hagedorn wrote.

He argued that the conversion therapy rule is now outside the Court’s purview, however.

“This ethical rule is already in effect; it is no longer suspended,” Hagedorn wrote. “Since a ruling on JCRAR’s actions with respect to this rule would have no legal effect, this claim is moot, and we have nothing further to decide.”

Hagedorn criticized the decision’s far-reaching findings that whole statutes were unconstitutional, however. He said it also failed to grapple with arguments about the constitutional status of regulation by executive branch agencies.

“The effect of the majority’s decision is to greenlight executive alteration of legal rights and duties outside the lawmaking process while prohibiting legislative alteration of legal rights and duties outside the lawmaking process,” Hagedorn wrote.

Former Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Rebecca Bradley published separate sharply worded dissents.

Ziegler wrote that the majority ruling was the outcome of “this court’s misguided quest to restructure and unbalance our state government, culminating in even more power and control being allocated to the executive branch.”

“The legislature has delegated executive branch agencies broad rulemaking authority with the understanding that it will be able to oversee administrative rulemaking through JCRAR,” Ziegler wrote. “The majority now pulls the rug out from under the legislature…”

Bradley, invoking lyrics from Bruce Springsteen’s song “Badlands” in which the singer says “a king ain’t satisfied ‘til he rules everything,” charged that the majority “lets the executive branch exercise lawmaking power unfettered and unchecked.”

Her dissent offered a full-throated attack on the administrative state and executive branch regulatory authority.

“The majority invokes the Wisconsin Constitution to take power from the People’s elected representatives in the legislature and bestow it on the executive branch, empowering unelected bureaucrats to rule over the People,” Bradley wrote.

2025-07-08_SCOWI_Evers v Marklein – JCRAR

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 3 minutes

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority struck down the state’s 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by newer state laws regulating the procedure, including statutes that criminalize abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb.

The ruling came as no surprise given that liberal justices control the court. One of them went so far as to promise to uphold abortion rights during her campaign two years ago, and they blasted the ban during oral arguments in November.

Ban outlawed destroying ‘an unborn child’

The statute Wisconsin legislators adopted in 1849, widely interpreted as a near-total ban on abortions, made it a felony for anyone other than the mother or a doctor in a medical emergency to destroy “an unborn child.”

The ban was in effect until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed it, however, and conservatives argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it.

Ruling: Post-Roe laws effectively replaced ban

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that abortion restrictions enacted by Republican legislators during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect trumped the ban. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.

Lawmakers also enacted abortion restrictions under Roe requiring women to undergo ultrasounds, wait 24 hours before having the procedure and provide written consent and receive abortion-inducing drugs only from doctors during an in-person visit.

“That comprehensive legislation so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was clearly meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion,” Justice Rebeca Dallet wrote for the majority.

Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that it can coexist with the newer abortion restrictions.

Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother’s consent — but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling, but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin.

Urmanski had asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper’s ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court.

Liberal justices signaled repeal was imminent

The liberal justices all but telegraphed how they would rule. Justice Janet Protasiewicz stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. During oral arguments, Dallet declared that the ban was authored by white men who held all the power in the 19th century. Justice Jill Karofsky likened the ban to a “death warrant” for women and children who need medical care.

A solid majority of Wisconsin voters in the 2024 election, 62%, said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to AP VoteCast. About one-third said abortion should be illegal in most cases, and only 5% said it should be illegal in all cases.

In a dissent, Justice Annette Ziegler called the ruling “a jaw-dropping exercise of judicial will.” She said the liberal justices caved in to their Democratic constituencies.

“Put bluntly, our court has no business usurping the role of the legislature, inventing legal theories on the fly in order to make four justices’ personal preference the law,” Ziegler said.

Urmanski’s attorney, Andrew Phillips, didn’t respond to an email. Kaul told reporters during a news conference that the ruling is a “major victory” for reproductive rights.

Heather Weininger, executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life, called the ruling “deeply disappointing.” She said that the liberals failed to point to any statute that explicitly repealed the 1849 ban.

“To assert that a repeal is implied is to legislate from the bench,” she said.

Court dismisses constitutional challenge

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin asked the Supreme Court in February 2024 to decide whether the ban was constitutional. The court dismissed that case with no explanation Wednesday.

Michelle Velasquez, chief strategy officer for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said Wednesday’s ruling creates stability for abortion providers and patients, but she was disappointed the justices dismissed the constitutional challenge. She hinted that the organization might look next to challenge the state’s remaining abortion restrictions.

Kaul said he has no plans to challenge the remaining restrictions, saying the Legislature should instead revisit abortion policy.

Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday’s ruling.

Abortion fight figures to play in 2026 court race

Abortion figures to be a key issue again next spring in another race for a state Supreme Court seat. Chris Taylor, a state appellate judge who served as Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin’s policy director before a stint as a Democratic legislator, is challenging conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley.

Taylor’s campaign sent out an email Wednesday calling the ruling a “huge victory” and asking for donations. She issued a statement calling the decision the correct one and blasting Bradley’s dissent as “an unhinged political rant.”

Bradley wrote that the four liberal justices fancy themselves “super legislators” and committed “an affront to democracy.”

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

Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down state’s 1849 abortion ban 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 seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23AP2362 Mandate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wisconsin Supreme Court chambers. (Baylor Spears | Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued two orders Wednesday, declining to hear cases challenging the constitutionality of the state’s congressional maps. 

Democrats had hoped that the liberal wing of the court retaining majority control of the body in this spring’s election would give them an opportunity to change the congressional lines. Republicans currently hold six of the state’s eight congressional seats, and Democrats hoped they could flip the 1st and 3rd CDs under friendlier maps. 

Before Republicans drew new congressional lines in 2010, Democrats controlled five of the state’s seats. The current maps were drawn by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and approved by the state Supreme Court when it was controlled by conservatives. That Court had required that any proposed maps adhere to a “least change” standard that changed as little as possible from the 2010 maps. 

While Evers’ maps made the two competitive districts slightly closer contests, they’re still controlled by Republican U.S. Reps. Bryan Steil and Derrick Van Orden. 

The two lawsuits were brought by the Elias Law Group representing Democratic candidates and voters and the Campaign Legal Center on behalf of a group of voters. The cases argued the maps violated the state’s constitutional requirement that all voters be treated equally. 

The challenges against the maps drew national attention as Democrats hope to retake control of the U.S. House of Representatives in next year’s midterm elections. 

This is the second time in as many years that the Supreme Court, under a liberal majority, has declined to hear challenges to the congressional maps. 

In both cases, the Court issued unanimous decisions without any explanation as to why they weren’t accepting the cases. 

Aside from declining to hear the cases, Justice Janet Protasiewicz issued an order denying requests that she recuse herself from the case. Republicans have called for her recusal from redistricting cases because of comments she made during her 2023 campaign about Wisconsin’s need for fairer maps. Previously, after Protasiewicz joined the Court, as part of a new liberal majority, it declared the state’s legislative maps, which locked in disproportionate Republican majorities in the Legislature, unconstitutional. 

“I am confident that I can, in fact and appearance, act in an impartial manner in this case,” she wrote. “And the Due Process Clause does not require my recusal because neither my campaign statements nor contributions to my campaign create a ‘serious risk of actual bias.’”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 3 minutes

A unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court handed a victory to the Republican-controlled Legislature on Wednesday in a power struggle with Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, reining in the governor’s expansive veto powers.

The court, in a ruling where the four liberal justices joined with three conservatives, struck down Evers’ partial veto of a Republican bill in a case that tested both the limits of his veto powers and the Legislature’s ability to exert influence by controlling funding.

The court also ruled that the Legislature can put money for certain state programs into an emergency fund under the control of its budget committee. Evers had argued such a move was unconstitutional.

The ruling will likely result in the Legislature crafting the budget and other spending bills in similar ways to get around Evers’ partial vetoes and to have even greater control over spending.

The ruling against Evers comes after the court earlier this year upheld Evers’ partial veto that locked in a school funding increase for 400 years. The court last year issued a ruling that reined in some powers of the Legislature’s budget committee, while this ruling went the other way.

Evers clashes with Legislature

Evers, in his seventh year as governor, has frequently clashed with the Legislature and often used his broad veto powers to kill their proposals. Republican lawmakers have tried to take control away from the governor’s office by placing money to fund certain programs and state agencies in an emergency fund controlled by the Legislature’s budget committee. That gives the Legislature significant influence over that funding and the implementation of certain programs within the executive branch.

Evers argued that the Legislature is trying to limit his partial veto power and illegally control how the executive branch spends money.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with the Legislature.

It ruled that Evers improperly used his partial veto on a bill that detailed the plan for spending on new literacy programs designed to improve K-12 students’ reading performance. The court also sided with the Legislature and said the budget committee can legally put money into an emergency fund to be distributed later. That is what it has done with the $50 million for the literacy program.

Fight over literacy funding

In 2023, Evers signed into law a bill that created an early literacy coaching program within the state Department of Public Instruction. The bill also created grants for schools that adopt approved reading curricula to pay for changing their programs and to train teachers on the new practices.

However, Republicans put the $50 million to pay for the new initiative in a separate emergency fund controlled by the Legislature’s budget committee. That money remains in limbo amid disagreements about how the money would be used and who would decide how to spend it.

Evers argued that the Legislature didn’t have the power to withhold the money and the court should order it to be released to the education department.

The Supreme Court declined to do that, saying the money was appropriated to the Legislature and the court has no authority to order it to be released to the education department to fund the literacy program.

Evers urged the Legislature’s budget committee to release the money.

Republican co-chairs of the committee said Wednesday they looked forward to releasing the money, and they blamed the governor’s veto with delaying it going to schools.

If no action is taken by Monday, the $50 million will go back into the state’s general fund.

The Legislature has been increasing the amount of money it puts in the emergency fund that it can release at its discretion, but it remains a small percentage of the total state budget. In the last budget, about $230 million was in the fund, or about half of a percentage point of the entire budget.

Evers used his partial veto power on another bill that created the mechanism for spending the $50 million for the new program. He argued that his changes would simplify the process and give DPI more flexibility. Evers also eliminated grants for private voucher and charter schools.

Republican legislators sued, contending that the governor illegally used his partial veto power.

State law allows only for a partial veto of bills that spend money. For all other bills, the governor must either sign or veto them in their entirety.

Because the bill Evers partially vetoed was a framework for spending, but didn’t actually allocate any money, his partial vetoes were unconstitutional, the Supreme Court said, agreeing with Republican lawmakers.

“The constitution gives the governor authority to veto in part only appropriation bills — not bills that are closely related to appropriation bills,” Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote.

Republican legislative leaders called the ruling a “rebuke” of Evers.

“While the Governor wanted to play politics with money earmarked for kids’ reading programs, it is encouraging to see the Court put an end to this game,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu said in a joint statement.

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

Wisconsin Supreme Court sides with Republican Legislature, reins in governor’s veto powers 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.

During the 2022–23 school year, book bans occurred in 153 districts across 33 states, according to a PEN America report. (Getty Images)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that Gov. Tony Evers overstepped his partial veto power by exercising it on a bill to implement new literacy programs in the state. Evers scolded the decision, while lawmakers said it upheld the balance of power and that they plan to release the funds now. 

The decision reverses a lower court, which ruled Evers hadn’t overstepped his power but held that the court did not have the power to compel the Legislature to release the funds. 

The case, Wisconsin State Legislature v. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, involves 2023 Wisconsin Act 100 — one part of a series of measures meant to support the creation of new literacy programs in Wisconsin. 

In the 2023-25 budget, lawmakers and Evers approved $50 million for new literacy programs but the funding went into a supplemental fund, meaning it required the Republican-led Joint Finance Committee to approve its release to the Department of Public Instruction before it could be used.

2023 Wisconsin Act 20  created an Office of Literacy within the Department of Public Instruction, which would be responsible for establishing an early literacy coaching program and awarding grants to schools. Act 100  was a separate law to create a way for the agency to expend the money transferred by the Joint Committee on Finance.

Evers exercised a partial veto when signing Act 100 into law to expand it from covering a “literacy coaching program” to covering a “literacy program.” The action led to lawmakers withholding the funding, saying he didn’t have the authority to change the law’s purpose, the argument at the center of their subsequent lawsuit. Evers’ administration had argued the bill was an appropriation, and therefore it was within the governor’s powers to partially veto it, and that the Legislature was not within its right to withhold the money.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the Legislature had not been improperly withholding the funding from DPI and that Act 100 was not an appropriation, so Evers overstepped the boundaries of the veto power given to him in the Wisconsin State Constitution. The decision overturns part of the ruling of a Dane County judge.

The state constitution gives the governor the power to sign or veto bills in full, and a 1930 amendment gave the governor the power to partially veto “appropriation bills.” Wisconsin’s executive partial veto power is one of the strongest in the country, though it has been limited over the last several decades by constitutional amendments and through Court rulings.

The state Supreme Court’s 7-0 ruling Wednesday reigns in Evers’ partial veto power.

Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote in the majority opinion that the bills “did not set aside public funds for a public purpose” but rather “created accounts into which money could be transferred to fund the programs established under Act 19 [the state budget] and Act 20, and it changed other aspects of the ‘literacy coaching program.’”

“The bill, however, does not set aside any public funds; in fact, it expressly states that “$0” was appropriated,” Bradley wrote.  

Bradley said it was within the Legislature’s authority to pass the bills in the way that it did, and the Constitution only gives the governor power to “veto in part only appropriation bills — not bills that are closely related to appropriation bills.”

“Although the executive branch may be frustrated by constitutional limits on the governor’s power to veto non-appropriation bills, the judiciary must respect the People’s choice to impose them,” Bradley wrote. “This court has no authority to interfere with the Legislature’s choices to structure legislation in a manner designed to insulate non-appropriation bills from the governor’s exercise of the partial veto power.” 

Under the ruling, the law will revert to what it was when the Legislature passed it.

Another recent state Supreme Court ruling upheld another of Evers’ partial vetoes that extended school revenue increases for 400 years, though that decision was split. In that ruling, the Supreme Court said lawmakers could avoid the partial veto power by drafting bills separate from appropriation bills. Republican lawmakers have been considering for years ways to limit Evers’ veto power, and it remains an issue of controversy in the current budget process as lawmakers pass bills without funding attached. 

Evers called the Supreme Court decision “unconscionable” and urged lawmakers to release the nearly $50 million.

“Twelve lawmakers should not be able to obstruct resources that were already approved by the full Legislature and the governor to help get our kids up to speed and ensure they have the skills they need to be successful,” Evers said in a statement. “It is unconscionable that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is allowing the Legislature’s indefinite obstruction to go unchecked.” 

Evers said he would accept the Court’s decision.

“A basic but fundamental responsibility of governors and executives is to dutifully comply with decisions of a court and the judiciary, even if — and, perhaps most importantly, when — we disagree,” Evers said. 

Evers said lawmakers failing to release the funds would be “reckless” and “irresponsible.” 

“Stop messing around with our kids and their futures and get it done,” Evers said. 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) said in a joint statement that the ruling is a “rebuke of the Governor’s attempt to break apart a bipartisan literacy-funding bill and JFC’s constitutional authority to give supplemental funding to agencies.”

“While the Governor wanted to play politics with money earmarked for kids’ reading programs, it is encouraging to see the Court put an end to this game,” Vos and LeMahieu said. “Wisconsin families are the real winners here.”

The end of the state’s fiscal year and deadline for getting the next state budget done is June 30, and if the money isn’t released, it will lapse back into the general fund going back to the state’s $4 billion budget surplus.

Co-chairs of the Joint Finance Committee Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) and Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) said in a joint statement they plan to release the funds now that the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue

“The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision confirmed what we already knew: the Governor’s partial veto of Act 100 was unconstitutional. We are happy to see that the court ruled in favor of the Legislature as a co-equal branch of government and provided us much needed guidance,” the lawmakers said. “Now that there is clarity, we look forward to releasing the $50 million set aside to support kids struggling to read and help implement these important, bipartisan reforms. It is unfortunate that the Governor’s unconstitutional veto has delayed this funding needed by kids and families across the state.”

At a press conference Wednesday afternoon, Democrats on the Joint Finance Committee called for lawmakers to meet before Monday to release the funds. 

“Unless the Joint Finance Committee acts before Monday, those kids and those school districts will not see another dime. Wisconsinites are tired of Republicans playing politics with our public schools,” Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) said. She noted that Evers had requested an additional $80 million for literacy in his budget proposal, but lawmakers have so far not included that. 

Republican lawmakers have approved the K-12 portion of the state budget, which includes an increase for the state’s special education reimbursement rate from about 32% to 37.5% and a 90% rate for high cost special education in the second year of the budget, along with funding for other priorities. Democrats and education advocates have been critical, saying that the budgeted amounts are not enough to ease the financial burdens public schools are facing.

Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha) said Democrats haven’t heard from Republican lawmakers about working on the budget.

“We are ready to work,” Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said. “We would like to see immediately some action on the funding that is going to disappear if it’s not spent by June 30th, particularly the literacy funding. The Joint Finance Committee has also refused to release other funds, including $125 million to combat PFAS and $15 million to support Chippewa Valley hospitals.

Roys said it was “great to hear” that the co-chairs said they would release the funds and that she hopes he “stands by his word.” 

State Superintendent Jill Underly also urged the release of the funds, saying part of the compromise struck by Evers and lawmakers was “to provide districts with funding to implement new strategies and change practices” and districts have been working to implement the literacy changes but have yet to see funding.

“It is devastating that despite bipartisan agreement on how to proceed, we have been stuck in neutral,” Underly said. 

Peggy Wirtz-Olsen, president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), the state’s largest teachers’ union, said in a statement that Republican lawmakers are “bent on using schools as pawns for political payback” and are giving “lip service to literacy, while leaving educators without funding to do our job.” 

“On the cusp of another state budget, these same politicians again threaten to underfund public schools instead of working across the aisle for the good of students,” Wirtz-Olsen said, adding that WEAC will continue to advocate for funding from the state.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 3 minutes

The Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered a victory for environmentalists on Tuesday in the fight over “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, issuing a ruling that advocates said will hold polluters accountable.

The liberal-controlled court ruled that state regulators can force landowners to clean up emerging pollutants such as PFAS before they are officially designated as hazardous substances.

The 5-2 ruling is a defeat for the state’s powerful group representing businesses and manufacturers, which had argued the state couldn’t enforce regulations on substances before they were officially designated as hazardous.

It is the latest development in a yearslong battle in Wisconsin and nationally involving regulators, environmentalists, politicians and businesses over how to deal with PFAS contamination.

The PFAS problem

Cities large and small across Wisconsin, from Madison to Marinette and La Crosse to Wausau, are grappling with PFAS contamination.

PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of chemicals that have been around for decades and have now spread into the nation’s air, water and soil.

They were manufactured by companies such as 3M, Chemours and others because they were incredibly useful. They helped eggs slide across nonstick frying pans, ensured that firefighting foam suffocates flames and helped clothes withstand the rain and keep people dry.

The chemicals resist breaking down, however, which means they stay around in the environment and have a hard time breaking down in the body. There is a wide range of health harms now associated with exposure to certain PFAS, including low birth weight, cancer and liver disease.

The Wisconsin case

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a case brought by the state’s largest business group, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, which sued the DNR in 2021 on behalf of Leather Rich, a dry cleaning business in Oconomowoc.

Leather Rich became aware of PFAS contamination in 2018 and was working on cleaning it up when the DNR posted a message online in 2019 saying it now considered PFAS chemicals a hazardous substance. The agency ordered the dry cleaner to test its groundwater for PFAS but didn’t tell the business which compounds it needed to test for or what levels would be considered dangerous.

WMC and Leather Rich argued the DNR can’t force businesses to test and clean up contamination from emerging pollutants like PFAS without first designating them as hazardous substances. That process can take years and requires approval from the Legislature. All that time, polluters could harm the environment and put people’s health and safety at risk with no obligation to begin cleanup, the DNR argued.

But Leather Rich argued that businesses have a right to know which substances are subject to regulation before spending time and money on cleanup.

A Waukesha County judge and the state appeals court sided with Leather Rich.

The DNR appealed, saying the lower court’s ruling would neuter the state’s “spills law,” which was designed to confront pollution.

That law, enacted about 50 years ago, requires anyone who causes, possesses or controls a hazardous substance that’s been released into the environment to clean it up.

“Wisconsin’s Spills Law safeguards human health and the environment in real time by directly regulating parties responsible for a hazardous substance discharge,” Justice Janet Protasiewicz wrote for the majority.

No state law required the DNR to implement a rule before requiring Leather Rich to begin cleaning up the site, she wrote.

“The DNR has explicit authority to enforce a threshold for reporting the discharge of hazardous substances,” Protasiewicz wrote.

The court’s four liberal justices were joined by conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn in the majority. Conservative justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley dissented.

In the dissent, they said the ruling allows bureaucrats to “impose rules and penalties on the governed without advance notice, oversight, or deliberation. In doing so, the majority violates three first principles fundamental to preserving the rule of law — and liberty.”

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and environmental advocates hailed the decision.

“This is a historic victory for the people of Wisconsin and my administration’s fight against PFAS and other harmful contaminants that are affecting families and communities across our state,” Evers said in a statement.

Rob Lee, attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates, called the ruling “a victory for the health and wellbeing of the people of Wisconsin” that reinforces “a bedrock environmental and public health protection that has kept Wisconsinites safe from toxic contamination for almost 50 years.”

But Scott Manley, a vice president at WMC, said the ruling leaves it up to businesses and homeowners to guess about what is hazardous, leaving them subject to “crushing fines and endless, costly litigation.”

“This ruling blesses a regulatory approach that is fundamentally unfair, unworkable, and impossible to comply with,” Manley said.

Fight over PFAS regulation

Since the lawsuit was filed, additional state and federal regulations of PFAS have been put in place.

Federal regulators placed the first-ever national standards on PFAS in drinking water last year, but the Trump administration said in May that it planned to weaken those limits.

The state has imposed less restrictive limits on PFAS in surface and drinking water, defined as piped water delivered through public systems and noncommunity systems that serve places such as factories, schools and hotels.

But it has not implemented PFAS standards for groundwater, the source of drinking water for about two-thirds of Wisconsin residents. The agency stopped efforts to draft them in 2023 after determining that compliance would be too expensive.

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

Wisconsin Supreme Court delivers win for environmentalists in fight over ‘forever chemicals’ 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 Wisconsin Department of Corrections Madison offices. (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the state’s correctional officers can sue the Department of Corrections as a class in an effort to get compensation for the time it takes the officers to be screened by security when coming to and leaving from work. 

In 2020, an officer filed a class action lawsuit against DOC arguing that the pre and post shift activities should be compensated. A Milwaukee County judge divided the case into two parts, separating the certification of correctional officers as a class from the evaluation of their argument on the merits. 

The circuit court judge granted the motion for class certification but that decision was reversed by the court of appeals, which ruled that the officers couldn’t be certified as a class because their argument was unlikely to be successful. 

In a majority opinion written by Justice Janet Protasiewicz, the Court reversed the appeals court’s decision, stating that to certify a class action lawsuit a judge must determine if the group at issue has a common question without evaluating the answer to that question.

DOC-ClassAction

“There is a difference between identifying whether a common question exists and deciding its answer,” Protasiewicz wrote. “A court ‘must walk a balance between evaluating evidence to determine whether a common question exists and predominates, without weighing that evidence to determine whether the plaintiff class will ultimately prevail on the merits.’”

Protasiewicz’s opinion was joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, Brian Hagedorn and Jill Karofsky. Chief Justice Annette Ziegler wrote a partial concurrence, which was joined by Justice Rebecca Bradley. 

The attorney for the DOC officers who brought the case said in a statement that his clients appreciate the Court’s decision.

“Our clients appreciate the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s well-reasoned decision reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the Circuit Court’s decision to certify a class of Wisconsin corrections officers,” the attorney, Michael Flannery, said in the statement. “Corrections officers are the largest officer force in the State of Wisconsin, and do a vital and incredibly difficult job. It is simply unfair that, for years, Wisconsin has forced them to do unpaid work before and after their shifts. We look forward to litigating this case through trial and getting some of Wisconsin’s hardest workers the economic justice they so deserve.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

In a 5-2 ruling on Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) authority to regulate polluters who produce hazardous substances such as PFAS through the state’s toxic spills law. 

The court’s ruling reverses the decisions of the circuit and appeals courts that could have threatened the DNR’s ability to force polluters to pay for the environmental damage they cause. For more than 40 years, the spills law has allowed the DNR to bring civil charges and enforce remediation measures against parties responsible for spills of “harmful substances.” 

The lawsuit was brought by an Oconomowoc dry cleaner and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), the state’s largest business lobby, after the owner of the dry cleaner, Leather Rich Inc., found PFAS on her property. 

In preparation to sell the business, Leather Rich had been participating in a voluntary DNR program to remediate contamination on its property in exchange for a certificate of liability protection from the department. During that process, the DNR determined that PFAS should be considered a “hazardous substance” under the spills law and communicated that on its website. 

If PFAS were present on a site, the DNR stated, participants in the voluntary program would only be eligible for partial liability protection. 

While conducting a site investigation through the program, Leather Rich determined three of four wells on the property exceeded Department of Health Services standards for PFAS concentration in surface or drinking water. The DNR requested that future reports from Leather Rich to the department include the amount of PFAS found on the property. Leather Rich responded by withdrawing from the program and filing suit. 

At the circuit and appeals courts, Leather Rich was successful, with judges at each level finding that the decision by the DNR to start considering PFAS a “hazardous substance” under the spills law constituted an “unpromulgated rule” and therefore was against the law. That interpretation would have required the DNR to undergo the complicated and often yearslong process of creating an administrative rule each time it determines that a substance is harmful to people or the environment.

SpillsLawDecision

In the majority opinion, authored by Justice Janet Protasiewicz and joined by the Court’s three other liberal leaning justices and conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, the Court found that the DNR spent nearly 50 years administering the spills law responding “to about 1,000 spills each year, without promulgating rules listing substances, quantities, and concentrations that it deems ‘hazardous substances.’”

Protasiewicz wrote that when the Legislature wrote the spills law, it left the definition of “hazardous substance” intentionally open-ended but required a potentially harmful substance to meet certain criteria if it would apply under the law. 

“The definition of ‘hazardous substance’ is broad and open-ended in that it potentially applies to ‘any substance or combination of substances,’” Protasiewicz wrote. “But the definition is limited in that the substance or combination of substances must satisfy one of two fact-specific criteria.” 

She wrote that the law considers “a substance or combination of substances is ‘hazardous’ if,” its quantity, concentration or characteristics may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness or may pose a potential hazard to human health or the environment

Leather Rich and WMC had argued that the Legislature’s failure to include chemical thresholds in the statutory text left while including the use of terms like “significantly,” “serious,” and “substantial,” meant that the law was ambiguous and therefore any DNR determinations of what counts as hazardous must be delineated in an administrative rule. They argued that under this interpretation of statute, spilling milk or beer on the ground could constitute a toxic spill. 

Protasiewicz wrote if that were the case, “then scores of Wisconsin statutes on a wide range of subjects would be called into doubt,” and that their hypotheticals are undermined by the text of the statute. 

“It is possible for an everyday substance like milk or beer to qualify as a ‘hazardous substance,’ but only if it first satisfies [the statute’s] fact specific criteria,” she wrote. “A mug of beer or a gallon of milk spilled into Lake Michigan may not ‘pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment,’ but a 500-gallon tank of beer or milk discharged into a trout stream might well pose a substantial present hazard to the stream’s fish and environment.” 

The majority opinion also found that communications the DNR made on its website and in letters to Leather Rich counted as “guidance documents” not as rules.

Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, who once gave a speech to WMC in which she declared to the business lobby that “I am your public servant,” wrote in a dissent joined by Chief Justice Annette Ziegler that the majority’s interpretation of the spills law left the state vulnerable to a “tyrannical” government that could both create the rules and enforce them. 

“This case is about whether the People are entitled to know what the law requires of them before the government can subject them to the regulatory wringer,” she wrote. “The majority leaves the People at the mercy of unelected bureaucrats empowered not only to enforce the rules, but to make them. Americans have lived under this unconstitutional arrangement for decades, but now, the majority says, the bureaucrats can impose rules and penalties on the governed without advance notice, oversight, or deliberation. In doing so, the majority violates three first principles fundamental to preserving the rule of law — and liberty.” 

After the decision’s release, Democrats and environmental groups celebrated its findings as an important step to protecting Wisconsin’s residents from the harmful effects of pollution. 

“This is a historic victory for the people of Wisconsin and my administration’s fight against PFAS and other harmful contaminants that are affecting families and communities across our state,” Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s decision today means that polluters will not have free rein to discharge harmful contaminants like PFAS into our land, water, and air without reporting it or taking responsibility for helping clean up those contaminants. It’s a great day for Wisconsinites and the work to protect and preserve our state’s valuable natural resources for future generations.”

But WMC said the Court’s interpretation leaves businesses guessing what substances count as hazardous under the law. 

“The DNR refuses to tell the regulated community which substances must be reported under the Spills Law, yet threatens severe penalties for getting it wrong,” Scott Manley, WMC’s Executive Vice President of Government Relations, said in a statement. “Businesses and homeowners are left to guess what’s hazardous, and if they’re wrong, they face crushing fines and endless, costly litigation. This ruling blesses a regulatory approach that is fundamentally unfair, unworkable, and impossible to comply with.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 2 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22AP790 Mandate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 3 minutes

A government watchdog group in Wisconsin filed a lawsuit Wednesday seeking to prohibit billionaire Elon Musk from ever again offering cash payments to voters in the battleground state like he did in this spring’s hotly contested Supreme Court race.

Musk handed out $1 million checks to three Wisconsin voters, including two in person just days before the state’s April 1 Supreme Court election, in an effort to help elect conservative candidate Brad Schimel. Two weeks before the election, Musk’s political action committee, America PAC, offered $100 to voters who signed a petition in opposition to “activist judges,” or referred someone to sign it.

It was all part of more than $20 million that Musk and groups he supports spent on the race in an effort to flip majority control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. More than $100 million was spent by both sides, making it the most expensive court race in U.S. history.

Musk’s preferred candidate lost to Democratic-backed Susan Crawford by 10 percentage points. Her victory cemented the 4-3 liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court until at least 2028.

Since that election, Musk announced he will spend less on political campaigns and then feuded publicly with President Donald Trump after exiting his administration.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday in state court by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign says that Musk’s actions create “the risk that Wisconsin elections will become an open auction, where votes go to the preferred candidates of the highest bidders and the election outcome is determined by which candidate has a patron willing and able to pay the highest sum to Wisconsin voters.”

The lawsuit says that Musk and two groups he funds violated prohibitions on vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries and says his actions were an unlawful conspiracy and public nuisance. The lawsuit asks the court to order that Musk never offer similar payments to voters again.

A spokesperson for Musk’s America PAC did not immediately return a text message Wednesday seeking comment.

There is another Wisconsin Supreme Court election in April. In November 2026, control of the Legislature and the governor’s office, as well as the state’s eight congressional districts, will be decided.

The latest lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and a pair of voters by the liberal Wisconsin-based Law Forward and the Washington-based Democracy Defenders Fund. It was filed against Musk, his group America PAC that announced the petition and the Musk-funded group United States of America Inc. that made the payments.

The court that Crawford joins in August could ultimately hear the new lawsuit. Crawford would almost certainly be asked to recuse from the case, and if she did, the court would be left with a 3-3 split between conservative and liberal justices.

The current court, also controlled 4-3 by liberals, declined to hear a similar hastily filed lawsuit brought by Wisconsin’s Democratic attorney general seeking to block Musk’s handing out of two $1 million checks to voters two days before the election.

Two lower courts rejected that lawsuit before the Supreme Court declined to hear it on procedural grounds.

Musk’s attorneys argued in that case that Musk was exercising his free speech rights with the giveaways and any attempt to restrict that would violate both the Wisconsin and U.S. constitutions.

Musk’s political action committee used a nearly identical tactic before the presidential election last year, offering to pay $1 million a day to voters in Wisconsin and six other battleground states who signed a petition supporting the First and Second amendments. A judge in Pennsylvania said prosecutors failed to show the effort was an illegal lottery and allowed it to continue through Election Day.

A federal lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania in April alleges that Musk and his political action committee failed to pay more than $20,000 for getting people to sign that petition in 2024. America PAC on Monday filed a motion to dismiss. That case is pending.

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

Wisconsin lawsuit seeks to ban Elon Musk from offering $1 million checks to voters 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.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk listens as President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign is suing billionaire Elon Musk over allegations that he violated multiple state laws, including the election bribery statute, when he offered voters a potential $1 million award for signing a petition as part of his effort to sway the result of Wisconsin’s April Supreme Court election. 

Represented by Wisconsin’s Law Forward, Democracy Defenders Fund and New York-based law firm Hecker Fink, the lawsuit accuses the world’s richest man of implementing “a brazen scheme to bribe Wisconsin citizens to vote.” 

Musk and his political action committee, America PAC, played a major role in this spring’s election becoming the most expensive judicial campaign in American history. Musk’s involvement in the race, which came as he was leading President Donald Trump’s cost-cutting initiatives and firing thousands of federal employees through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), was widely seen as causing a backlash and helping Dane County Judge Susan Crawford defeat Musk-backed Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel. 

Musk and his PAC spent more than $20 million on the race. 

Prior to the election, America PAC offered voters $100 if they signed a petition “in opposition to activist judges,” and another $100 if they referred another voter to sign the petition. Later, at a pre-election rally in Green Bay, Musk handed out two $1 million checks to voters, which had been advertised as awards “in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.” 

The lawsuit, filed in Dane County court, notes it is against the law to offer anyone more than $1 to induce them to go to the polls, vote or vote for a particular candidate. 

“By offering and paying Wisconsin citizens amounts far greater than $1 to vote, Defendants violated Wisconsin’s election bribery law,” the lawsuit states. “Defendants’ payments and offers of payment to Wisconsin voters, made with the clear intent to aid one candidate and induce Wisconsinites to vote, threatened the integrity of the election and damaged public confidence in the electoral system.”

Jeff Mandell, Law Forward’s general counsel, said the lawsuit was meant to prevent efforts like Musk’s from becoming a regular occurrence. 

“We are fighting for free and fair elections,” Mandell said. “We believe our democracy demands better than schemes like the one detailed in our complaint. So, we are working to hold Musk accountable and stop this from becoming the new normal.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

“The focus here is going to be on basically keeping our food safe and preventing disease from spreading,” Sen. Howard Marklein said at a press conference. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Republicans and Democrats on the Wisconsin Joint Finance Committee were divided Tuesday about the amount of money the state should invest in several state agencies including the Department of Workforce Development, the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection.

Republicans on the committee said they were making strategic and realistic investments in priority areas, while Democrats said Republicans’ investments wouldn’t make enough of an impact.

GOP rejects new protection for state Supreme Court 

The first divisive issue came up when the committee considered the budgets for Wisconsin’s courts. 

Democrats proposed that the state provide an additional $2 million and 8 new positions for the creation of an Office of the Marshals of the Supreme Court that would provide security for the Court. 

Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha) and Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said the need for the office has increased recently due to the number of threats the judges and justices are facing. 

“Given the role that they play in our judiciary in order to be impartial, we shouldn’t want them to be in danger or to fear for their safety or to have any outward pressures on them that would influence the case,” McGuire said. “I believe it’s important for the cause of justice. I believe it’s important for the cause of safety.”

Roys noted the inflammatory language that members of the Trump administration have used when talking about judges and justices, noting that Republicans have passed legislation before to help protect judges. She also noted that former Juneau County Circuit Court Judge John Roemer was targeted and murdered at his home in 2022. 

“It is really frightening… and the Supreme Court has made this request over numerous years because they understand better than any of us do what it’s like to try to serve the public in this critically important but increasingly dangerous role,” Roys said. “I am much less interested in putting people in prison after they have murdered a judge than I am in preventing our judges from being attacked or killed, so, this seems to me a tiny amount of money to do a really important task to protect the third branch of government and particularly our Supreme Court.” 

Republicans rejected Democrats’ motion. Committee co-chair Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) said at a press conference ahead of the meeting that the Wisconsin Capitol Police are tasked with protecting visitors, employees, legislators, the Court and anyone else in the building.

“They do a good job and continue to provide top-notch work here at the Capitol as part of security for everyone who works here,” Born said. 

The committee also voted 13-3 with Andraca joining Republicans to allocate an additional $10 million each year to counties for circuit court costs.

Meat inspection gets additional funding

The committee took action on portions of the budget for the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP), giving a boost to he agency’s Meat Inspection Program and Division of Animal Health. 

“The focus here is going to be on basically keeping our food safe and preventing the disease from spreading,” committee co-chair Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) said. 

The Meat Inspection Program got an additional $2.7 million and two additional positions under the proposal approved by the committee. The program works to ensure the safety and purity of meat products sold in Wisconsin, including by inspecting the livestock and poultry slaughtering and processing facilities that are not already inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

The Division of Animal Health would get three additional employees that would be funded with about $500,000. 

According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Wisconsin has 233 official meat establishments and 70 custom meat establishments that require state inspection. 

Roys said the proposal “falls far short of what is needed,” noting that agriculture is a major economic driver in Wisconsin and the industry is under pressure due to actions being taken by the Trump administration. The USDA recently terminated its National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection, which had been in place since 1971, and the administration has considered ending most of its routine food safety inspections work. 

“That kind of uncertainty is exactly why we need to step up our work at the state level,” Roys said, adding that she hopes that Republicans “consider funding at the appropriate level what our farmers…deserve.”  

Marklein noted that the committee’s work on DATCP’s part of the budget is not completed yet. 

“This is a program that’s had a shortfall year over year,” Andraca said, adding that she hopes “members of this committee are vegetarians.” 

“If there’s one place that I wouldn’t cut, it would probably be in meat inspection. If we’re looking at places to take a little off the edge, food safety is not one of them, particularly in a time where we have avian flu and other diseases breaking out,” Andraca said.

Youth apprenticeship program gets boost

The committee also voted along party lines to invest additional funds in programs administered by the Department of Workforce Development, including $6 million in youth apprenticeship grants, $570,000 in early college credit program grants, $250,000 for the agency’s commercial driver training grant program and $250,000 for the workforce training grants. 

Democrats had suggested that the committee dedicate $11 million for the youth apprenticeship program, which provides an opportunity for juniors and seniors in high school to get hands-on experience in a field alongside classroom instruction, but Republicans rejected it opting to put a little more than half of that towards the program. 

Andraca said the program is important for allowing youth to “try out new skills and new jobs” and train to fill positions in  Wisconsin  and that the $6 million investment makes it seem like the program is “pretty much getting gutted.” The program has steadily grown annually over the last several years at an estimated rate of 16%, although, according to the LFB, the number of additional students each year has declined going from a high of 1,923 additional students in 2022-23, to 1,703 more in 2023-24, and 1,430 in 2024-25. 

Andraca noted that the program currently operates on a sum certain model, meaning that there is a specific amount of money available and the size of a grant could vary depending on participation and available funds. If there is continued growth of 16% then the grant sizes could shrink. A sum sufficient model (which Democrats wanted) would mean that the agency’s spending on the program isn’t capped by a specific dollar amount.

Sen. Romaine Quinn (R-Birchwood) noted that the grants for students would likely grow from an average of about $900 currently to about $1,000 under the Republican proposal. 

“This motion [is] at $6 million and $100 per award over the last budget, but we’re supposed to believe it’s gutting the program,” Quinn said. 

“Welcome to the People’s Republic of Madison where stuff like that happens a lot; $6 million in new money is a lot of money to most people but obviously the other side, it’s gutting the program,” Born said, responding to Quinn. “At some point when you’re building a budget, you have to figure out a way to afford it, be reasonable in your investments, so maybe that’s why we don’t view a $6 million investment as gutting because we’re trying to live within our means.” 

Funding to support new Wisconsin History Center

The committee approved $2.3 million to support the new Wisconsin History Center in downtown Madison for 2025-26 and $540,800 and six positions annually starting in 2026-27.

Construction on the museum, which will be operated by the Wisconsin Historical Society, started in April and  its opening is set for 2027. 

The  Historical Society had requested the one-time funding of $2.3 million in 2025-26 as well as ongoing funding of $1.7 million annually — more than double the amount the committee approved — starting in 2026-27 to help with operational costs, including security, janitorial and maintenance services. It said without ongoing funding from the state it wouldn’t be able to open and maintain the museum. It also said that it was not anticipating needing to request additional funding for the museum operations in future budget cycles if the request is funded. 

The committee also approved an additional $562,000 in one-time funding across the biennium for security and facilities improvements for the Historical Society’s facilities and collections and $157,000 to cover estimated future increases in services costs. But the committee decreased funding for the Historical Society by $214,000 for estimated fuel and utilities costs.

DOR budget moves resources to Alcohol Beverages Division 

A law, 2023 Wisconsin Act 73, overhauled alcohol regulation in Wisconsin and created a new Division of Alcohol Beverages under the Department of Regulation tasked with preventing violations of the new laws. Republicans on the committee approved a motion to recategorize nine general DOR positions and over $900,000 to the Division of Alcohol Beverages to help with enforcement. It also transferred an attorney to the division and added $456,000 in funding for two more positions in the Division of Alcohol Beverages.

Democrats said that Republicans on the committee were “nickel and diming” the Department of Revenue with its proposal given that it recategorizes already existing positions rather than creating new ones. 

“I do appreciate some of the efforts involved in this motion,” McGuire said, adding that he noticed there were 10 positions that were moved around.

“That seemed odd to me,” McGuire said. “Were their feet up on their desk? They weren’t collecting taxes… or what were they doing? We want to be able to give the Department of Revenue tools they need to succeed, and frankly, the tools they need to provide resources to the state to make sure that everyone’s on an even playing field so we can fund the priorities” of the state. 

The GOP proposal passed on a party-line vote.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended a Dane County judge for a week Tuesday for leaving court to try to arrest a hospitalized defendant herself and getting into a sarcastic exchange with another defendant seeking a trial delay.

The court agreed with a judicial conduct review panel’s suspension recommendation for Ellen Berz, finding that she deserved more than a reprimand because she behaved impulsively and showed a lack of restraint. The suspension will begin June 26, the court ordered.

“We believe that the recommended seven-day suspension is of sufficient length to impress upon Judge Berz the necessity of patience, impartiality, and restraint in her work, and to demonstrate to the public the judiciary’s dedication to promoting professionalism among its members,” the justices wrote in the suspension order. Justice Jill Karofsky, herself a former Dane County judge, did not participate in the case.

The suspension order noted that Berz has acknowledged the facts of the case and has accepted full responsibility. Andrew Rima, one of two attorneys listed for Berz in online court records, declined to comment. Her other attorney, Steven Caya, didn’t immediately respond to an email.

Berz is the second Wisconsin judge that the state Supreme Court has suspended in the last five weeks. The justices suspended Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan indefinitely on April 29 after federal prosecutors accused her of helping a man evade U.S. immigration agents by showing him out a back door in her courtroom.

A federal grand jury has indicted Dugan on one count of obstruction and one count of concealing a person to prevent arrest. She has pleaded not guilty and is set to stand trial in July.

The Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed a misconduct complaint against Berz, the Dane County judge, in October accusing her of failing to promote public confidence in judicial impartiality, failing to treat people professionally and failing to performing her duties without bias.

According to the complaint, Berz was presiding over an operating-while-intoxicated case in December 2021. The defendant didn’t show up in court on the day the trial was set to begin. His attorney told Berz that the defendant had been admitted to a hospital.

Berz had a staff member investigate and learned that he was in a Sun Prairie emergency room. The judge ordered her bailiff to go arrest him, but was told the bailiff couldn’t leave the courthouse. She declared that she would retrieve the defendant herself, and if something happened to her, people would hear about it on the news, according to the complaint. She then left court and began driving to the emergency room with the defendant’s attorney in the passenger seat, the complaint says. No prosecutor was present in the vehicle.

She eventually turned around after the defense attorney warned her that traveling to the hospital was a bad idea because she was supposed to be the neutral decision-maker in the case, according to the complaint. She went back into court and issued a warrant for the defendant’s arrest.

The complaint also alleges she told a defendant in a child sexual assault case who had asked to delay his trial for a second time that he was playing games and should “go to the prison and talk to them about all the games you can play.”

When the defendant said her sarcasm was clear, she told him: “Good. I thought it would be. That’s why I’m saying it to you that way, because I thought you would relate with that.”

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

Wisconsin Supreme Court suspends judge who left court to arrest hospitalized defendant 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.

In a 5-2 ruling the Wisconsin Supreme Court kept alive a woman's lawsuit against a doctor who had recommended surgery to another doctor that was performed on the woman without her knowledge. (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

A patient whose ovaries were removed without her knowledge during colon surgery can sue the doctor who she says recommended the procedure, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Friday.

In the opinion, five of the Court’s seven justices agreed that lower courts were correct when they refused to dismiss the patient’s lawsuit. With the ruling, the case is sent back to Rock County Circuit Court.

The patient, Melissa Hubbard, was being treated for endometriosis in 2018 by an obstetrician/gynecologist, Dr. Carol Neuman. During the time, Hubbard also was referred for surgery to remove a section of her colon.

The surgery was performed by Dr. Michael McGauley. During the procedure, Hubbard’s ovaries were removed, but she wasn’t told beforehand that would be part of the operation.

Hubbard initially sued McGauley, but that lawsuit was dismissed. She subsequently sued Neuman, charging that — without telling her — the OB/GYN had suggested to McGauley that he remove Hubbard’s ovaries during the colon surgery.

The lawsuit charges that when Neuman made the recommendation to McGauley, she violated Hubbard’s right to informed consent under Wisconsin law.

Neuman’s lawyers filed a motion in Rock County circuit court to dismiss the lawsuit on saying that, in the context of the surgery, Neuman was not Hubbard’s “treating physician” under the informed consent law.

Neuman’s lawyer argued that because the state law’s informed consent requirement applies to the “treating physician,” Hubbard had no case against Neuman since she did not perform the surgery and she never gave a formal order to the surgeon to remove Hubbard’s ovaries.

The circuit court judge denied the dismissal motion, and the state 4th District Court of Appeals agreed.

With Friday’s opinion, the Wisconsin Supreme Court also denied the motion to dismiss the case.

“We disagree with Dr. Neuman,” Chief Justice Anne Walsh Bradley wrote on behalf of the majority. “The essence of the inquiry is whether Hubbard’s complaint sufficiently alleges that Dr. Neuman was a ‘physician who treat[ed]’ Hubbard, even though she did not actually remove Hubbard’s ovaries herself. We conclude that it does.” 

Bradley was joined in the majority by Justices Rebecca Dallet, Brian Hagedorn, Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz.

According to the opinion, the complaint depicts “Neuman’s intimate involvement with the removal of Hubbard’s ovaries” — first, diagnosing Hubbard with a severe case of endometriosis and then advising her to consider removing her left fallopian tube and ovary.

“Second, after Hubbard agreed to undergo colon surgery, Dr. Neuman allegedly helped plan the surgery with Dr. McGauley,” Walsh Bradley wrote. “The physicians’ pre-surgery discussions and plans included Dr. Neuman’s plan to attend and participate in Hubbard’s surgery and to remove Hubbard’s ovaries herself. Hubbard also alleges that Dr. Neuman recommended to Dr. McGauley that he remove Hubbard’s ovaries.”

Those allegations in the lawsuit are enough to consider Neuman a treating physician in the case, Walsh Bradley wrote.

Justice Annette Ziegler, joined by Justice Rebecca Bradley, disagreed. 

“To be a treating physician under [the informed consent statute], the physician needs to either provide the treatment at issue himself or formally order the treatment at issue,” Ziegler wrote, citing the text and history of the law along with “the decisions of courts across the country that have addressed who qualifies as a treating physician.”

While Hubbard never told Neuman she wanted her ovaries removed and never consented to their removal in the surgery, Ziegler wrote, “the complaint never expressly alleges, nor reasonably implies, that Dr. Neuman performed or participated in the surgery or attended the surgery.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 3 minutes

A Wisconsin appeals court judge who was an outspoken supporter of abortion rights in the state Legislature announced Tuesday that she is running for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, taking on an incumbent conservative justice who sided with President Donald Trump in his failed attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Wisconsin Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor, 57, becomes the first liberal candidate to enter the 2026 race.

The election next year won’t be for control of the court in the battleground state because liberals already hold a 4-3 majority. The race is for a seat held by conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley, who said last month she is running for reelection.

Liberals won the majority of the court in 2024, and they will hold it until at least 2028 thanks to the victory in April by Democratic-backed Susan Crawford over a conservative candidate supported by Trump and billionaire Elon Musk.

Musk spent at least $3 million on this year’s Wisconsin Supreme Court race himself, and groups he funds spent nearly $19 million more. But Musk said Tuesday he will be spending less on political campaigns in the future, which could mean less money for Bradley.

This year’s race broke spending records and became an early litmus test for Trump and Musk in the presidential swing state that Trump won in 2024 and 2016, but lost in 2020. Crawford won by 10 points, marking the 12th victory out of 15 races for a Democratic-backed statewide candidate in Wisconsin.

Liberals have a chance to expand their majority on the court next year to 5-2. If Bradley wins, the 4-3 liberal majority would be maintained.

In an interview Monday with The Associated Press, Taylor said she is running “to make sure that people get a fair shake, that the judiciary remains independent and impartial and that people have confidence in the judiciary.”

She accused Bradley of prioritizing a right-wing agenda, noting her siding with Trump in his unsuccessful attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Bradley did not immediately respond to an email Tuesday seeking comment. But Wisconsin Republican Party Chair Brian Schimming called Taylor a “radical” and said she will have to answer for her “extremely partisan record in the Legislature and on the bench.”

Taylor was an outspoken supporter of abortion rights, gun control and unions while representing Wisconsin’s liberal capital city Madison as a Democrat in the Legislature from 2011 to 2020. Before that, she worked as an attorney and as public policy director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.

Her past comments and positions will almost certainly be used by conservatives to argue that Taylor is biased and must not hear cases involving many topics including abortion, redistricting and union rights.

Taylor said her record as a judge over the past five years shows she can be objective.

“There is no room for partisanship in the judiciary,” she said.

Taylor said she would not step aside from a case just because it dealt with abortion, union rights or redistricting. Whether to recuse would be a case-by-case decision based on the facts, she said.

“There are cases where, if you do not feel you can be impartial, you need to recuse and I have done that,” Taylor said. “But whole topics? I would say no.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling within weeks in one challenge it heard last year to the state’s 1849 abortion ban law. It has agreed to hear another case brought by Planned Parenthood that seeks to make abortion a constitutional right, but has yet to schedule a date for oral arguments. That case most likely will be heard before the winner of next year’s election takes the seat in August 2026.

Taylor was outspoken in opposition to then-Gov. Scott Walker’s signature law, known as Act 10, that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most public workers. A Dane County circuit judge struck down most of the law as unconstitutional in December, and the Supreme Court is considering whether to hear an appeal.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court faces a number of other high-profile cases, including a pair filed earlier this month seeking to overturn the state’s Republican-drawn congressional maps.

Taylor was appointed to the Dane County Circuit Court in 2020 by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. She won election to the state appeals court in 2023.

Bradley, the incumbent, was appointed to the Supreme Court by Walker in 2015 and won election to a full term in 2016.

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

Judge Chris Taylor, who as legislator fought for abortion rights, running for Wisconsin Supreme Court 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.

Wisconsin Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor in her Dane County chambers. | Photo courtesy Chris for Justice campaign

Appeals court judge and former Democratic state Assembly member Chris Taylor announced Tuesday she’s running for a seat on the state Supreme Court in next year’s spring election. 

Taylor, who was elected to the Court of Appeals in 2023, will run against conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley in a race that will decide if liberals expand their majority on the Court. 

The two previous state Supreme Court elections, which consolidated the current 4-3 liberal majority, broke national spending records for judicial races. While the stakes won’t be as high in next year’s race, Bradley has been a prominent supporter of conservative causes since she was appointed to the Court by Gov. Scott Walker in 2015. 

Bradley sided with President Donald Trump in his effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election and has been a vocal member of the right-wing Federalist Society. 

The election takes place just seven months before the midterm elections when statewide offices including governor and attorney general, as well as control of the Legislature, will be up for grabs — giving the state a view of the voting public’s mood before November. 

Taylor previously worked as Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin’s public policy director and served in the Assembly from 2013 until she was appointed to the Dane County Circuit Court in 2020. 

“As an attorney, public servant, and now as a judge, I’ve always been committed to making sure everyone is able to access our justice system,” Taylor said in a statement. “The law is a powerful tool for protecting Wisconsinites, holding people accountable, and making our state stronger.” 

“Justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court must be fair, independent, and impartial,” Taylor said. “Justice Rebecca Bradley has proven that she’s more interested in pushing her own right-wing political agenda than protecting Wisconsinites’ rights and freedoms. Extremism and partisanship have no place on our state’s highest court. Everyone who comes before the court deserves to be heard, respected, and treated equally – that’s exactly what I’ll do as a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice.”

While Taylor has been elected to office six times, she has only faced a Republican opponent once. She ran unopposed for her Madison-area Assembly seat in 2012, 2014 and 2018. When she had an opponent in 2016, she won with 83% of the vote. She also ran unopposed for re-election to the Dane County Court in 2021 and for her seat on the District IV Court of Appeals in 2023. 

In a statement, Republican Party of Wisconsin Chair Brian Schimming noted that she’s never had to win the votes of people outside of heavily Democratic Dane County.

“Chris Taylor’s extreme partisan record has never been on full display outside of Dane County,” Schimming said. “After ‘liberal express lane’ elections in Dane County and an appointment from Tony Evers, Radical Democrat Chris Taylor will now have to answer for her extremely partisan record in the Legislature and on the bench.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 2 minutes

A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers is pushing a fix to a 2022 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that hampered the public’s ability to obtain attorney fees in certain public records lawsuits against public officials — but the top Assembly Republican remains noncommittal about the bill.

The case, Friends of Frame Park v. City of Waukesha, involved a public records dispute between the city and a citizen group. Waukesha was working to bring a semi-professional baseball team to town. A group of concerned residents, Friends of Frame Park, submitted a public records request to the city seeking copies of any agreements the city had reached with the team’s owners or the semi-professional league. 

The city partially denied the request and refused to produce a copy of a draft contract. Friends of Frame Park hired an attorney and sued. A day after the lawsuit was filed, and before the local circuit court took action, the city produced a copy of the draft contract.

The case eventually worked its way to the state Supreme Court, which determined that Friends of Frame Park was not entitled to attorney fees because it technically had not prevailed in court — the group received the record without action from the circuit court.

The ruling “actually incentivizes public officials to illegally withhold records because it forces requestors to incur legal costs that may never be recovered,” said Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, during a public hearing about the bill.

Max Lenz, an attorney representing the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, said the state Supreme Court ruling incentivizes public officials to “effectively dare the public to sue.” 

“The Supreme Court’s ruling in Friends of Frame Park flipped the public records law presumption of openness on its head,” he said.

The legislation, spearheaded by state Sen. Van Wanggaard, R-Racine, would supersede the high court’s ruling and allow a requestor to obtain attorney fees if a judge determines that the filing of a lawsuit “was a substantial factor contributing to that voluntary or unilateral release” of records, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau. 

The bill has garnered support from an unusual coalition of organizations. Seven groups, some of which frequently lobby, have registered in support of the bill, including the liberal ACLU of Wisconsin and the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.

A similar version of the bill was approved by the state Senate last session but did not receive a vote in the Assembly. The legislation was approved by the state Senate last week.

The legislation’s path forward remains unclear. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, told reporters recently that “our caucus has never talked about it.”

“It’s certainly something we could discuss, but we don’t have a position on it at this time,” Vos added.

Are you interested in learning more about public records? Here’s a primer on what types of records should be accessible to you — and how to request them.

Top Republican noncommittal on bipartisan fix to Wisconsin public records access problem 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.