Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves a challenge to Governor Tony Evers' use of his partial veto authority under the Wisconsin Constitution. The dispute centers on the 2023-25 biennial budget bill, where the governor used his partial veto power to extend an education revenue limit increase from two fiscal years to 402 fiscal years by striking certain words and digits from the bill.The petitioners did not ask the court to overrule existing precedent but instead brought two novel challenges. They argued that the governor's partial vetoes violated Article V, Section 10(1)(b) of the Wisconsin Constitution because extending a duration from two years to 402 years is not a "part" of two years. They also contended that the vetoes violated Section 10(1)(c) because it prohibits the governor from striking digits to create new numbers.The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected both arguments. The court found that the first argument improperly relied on the holding in Citizens Utility Board v. Klauser, which was limited to the specific circumstance of write-in vetoes, not applicable here. The second argument failed because Section 10(1)(c) does not prohibit the governor from striking digits to create new numbers. The court concluded that the 2023 partial vetoes did not violate the constitution and denied the petitioners' requested relief.The court also highlighted potential legislative options to address the governor's partial veto power, including future budget bills, constitutional amendments, and legislative drafting strategies. The court upheld the partial vetoes as consistent with the Wisconsin Constitution. View "LeMieux v. Evers" on Justia Law

Gregory and Jeffrey Cota, employees of the Oconomowoc Area School District, were accused by a coworker of stealing money from the District. An internal investigation by the District was inconclusive, and the case was handed over to the police. The police investigation did not uncover new evidence, but the Cotas were cited for municipal theft. Approximately a year later, the assistant city attorney informed the District that he believed he could obtain a conviction. The next day, the District terminated the Cotas' employment.The Cotas filed claims of arrest-record discrimination under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, alleging that their termination was due to their arrest records. An administrative law judge initially found in favor of the District, but the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) reversed this decision, concluding that the District had engaged in arrest-record discrimination. The circuit court affirmed LIRC's decision, but the court of appeals reversed, holding that the Act's definition of "arrest record" did not include non-criminal offenses like municipal theft.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the phrase "any . . . other offense" in the Act's definition of "arrest record" includes non-criminal offenses. The Court found that LIRC's conclusion that the District terminated the Cotas because of their arrest records was supported by substantial evidence. The Court rejected the District's argument that it was protected by the "Onalaska defense," which allows termination based on an internal investigation's findings, because LIRC found that the District relied on arrest-record information. The decision of the court of appeals was reversed, affirming LIRC's decision that the District violated the Act by terminating the Cotas due to their arrest records. View "Oconomowoc Area School District v. Cota" on Justia Law

High school athlete Hayden Halter was ejected from a varsity wrestling meet for unsportsmanlike conduct. The Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) has a rule requiring an athlete disqualified for unsportsmanlike conduct to serve a suspension at the next competitive event. Halter attempted to serve his suspension at a junior varsity event before the regional tournament, but the WIAA did not agree that this would satisfy the suspension. Halter and his father obtained a temporary restraining order in circuit court, allowing him to participate in regionals and eventually win the state championship. The litigation over his eligibility continued.The Racine County Circuit Court initially granted a temporary restraining order in favor of Halter, allowing him to compete. However, after further hearings, the circuit court ruled in favor of the WIAA. The court of appeals reversed this decision, leading to the WIAA petitioning for review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the WIAA acted reasonably in interpreting and applying its rules. The court found that the WIAA's interpretation of Rule 8(a), which required Halter to serve his suspension at the next varsity event, was reasonable and consistent with the rule's purpose of imposing real punishment for unsportsmanlike conduct. The court also found that the WIAA's appeal process, which did not allow for appeals of sport-specific season regulations, was reasonable and not arbitrary. Consequently, the court reversed the decision of the court of appeals, ruling in favor of the WIAA. View "Halter v. Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association" on Justia Law

Kenneth Brown filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) alleging that the in-person absentee voting procedures in Racine during the August 2022 primary election violated the law. Brown observed voting at City Hall and a local mall and believed the procedures were unlawful. WEC found no probable cause of a violation and declined to take action. Brown then appealed WEC’s decision to the Racine County Circuit Court.The circuit court determined that Brown had standing to bring the action, as the alleged invalid voting procedures impacted his right to vote. The court partially ruled in Brown’s favor, concluding that the Racine City Clerk’s choice of alternate voting sites violated statutory requirements and that the use of a mobile election unit was unlawful. WEC sought to appeal this decision, and the case was brought before the Wisconsin Supreme Court via a bypass petition.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed whether Brown had standing to seek judicial review of WEC’s decision. The court interpreted Wisconsin Statute § 5.06(8), which allows for appeals from WEC’s decisions, and determined that to be “aggrieved” by a decision, an individual must suffer an injury to a legally recognized interest. The court found that Brown did not demonstrate any personal injury resulting from WEC’s decision, as he did not allege that the decision made it more difficult for him to vote or affected him personally.The court held that Brown was not “aggrieved” within the meaning of the statute and therefore did not have standing to seek judicial review. Consequently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Brown’s complaint. View "Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) and certain legislators regarding the appointment of a new administrator for WEC. The legislators argued that the term of the current administrator, Meagan Wolfe, expired on July 1, 2023, and that WEC is required to appoint a new administrator. WEC contended that Wolfe could continue to hold over in her position until a new administrator is appointed and confirmed by the Senate.The Dane County Circuit Court granted WEC's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the legislators' motion. The court concluded that WEC does not have a duty to appoint a new administrator simply because the current administrator's term has expired. Instead, WEC is only required to appoint a new administrator if there is a vacancy in the position. The court also issued a permanent injunction preventing the legislators from taking any action contrary to its declarations.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the case on bypass. The court affirmed the circuit court's decision in part and remanded for further proceedings. The Supreme Court held that Wisconsin Statute § 15.61(1)(b)1. specifies that WEC must appoint an administrator by a majority vote of its members and with the Senate's confirmation. However, the statute imposes a duty on WEC to appoint a new administrator only if a vacancy occurs in the position. Since no vacancy existed, WEC did not have a duty to appoint a new administrator to replace Wolfe simply because her term had ended. View "Wisconsin Elections Commission v. LeMahieu" on Justia Law

David Morway sought review of an unpublished order by the court of appeals that dismissed his appeal as untimely. The appeal was against a May 24, 2023, circuit court order denying his motion to modify or terminate spousal maintenance. The court of appeals concluded that the order was final for purposes of appeal under WIS. STAT. § 808.03(1) and dismissed the appeal because David filed his notice of appeal outside the 90-day timeframe.In the Ozaukee County Circuit Court, David and Karen Morway were divorced in 2019, with David ordered to pay spousal maintenance. David filed a motion to modify the maintenance in May 2022 due to a change in his employment circumstances. The family court commissioner reduced David’s maintenance obligation, but Karen appealed. The circuit court held a trial and denied David’s motion to modify or terminate maintenance in an oral decision on April 19, 2023, which was later memorialized in the May 24 order. Karen’s post-trial motion for attorney fees based on overtrial was also denied at that time.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the May 24 order was final because it disposed of the entire matter in litigation, specifically David’s motion to modify or terminate maintenance. The court held that the order was unambiguous in its finality, despite lacking an explicit finality statement. The court affirmed the court of appeals' decision, concluding that David’s notice of appeal was not timely filed within the 90-day period, and thus, the court of appeals properly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Morway v. Morway" on Justia Law

The Wisconsin Voter Alliance filed identical petitions for writ of mandamus against the registers in probate for 13 circuit courts in Wisconsin, seeking access to Notice of Voting Eligibility (NVE) forms under Wisconsin’s public records law. These forms document when a court finds an individual incompetent to vote. The Alliance argued that they needed this information to ensure the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) was updating voter records accurately.The Walworth County Circuit Court dismissed the Alliance’s petition, agreeing with the register in probate, Kristina Secord, that the NVE forms were exempt from disclosure under Wisconsin Statute § 54.75. The Alliance appealed to the Court of Appeals, District II. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals, District IV, had already ruled in a similar case (Reynolds) that NVE forms were exempt from disclosure under the same statute, affirming the Juneau County Circuit Court’s dismissal of the Alliance’s petition.In the current case, the Court of Appeals, District II, issued a split opinion. The majority held that the Alliance was entitled to the NVE forms, possibly with redactions, and reversed the circuit court’s dismissal. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that District II violated the precedent set by Cook v. Cook, which mandates that the Court of Appeals must follow prior published opinions unless overruled by the Supreme Court.The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that District II was bound by the Reynolds decision and should have either certified the appeal to the Supreme Court or adhered to the prior opinion while expressing its disagreement. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, District II, and remanded the case with instructions to follow the precedent established in Reynolds. View "Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Secord" on Justia Law

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Nicole Shanahan submitted nomination papers to the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) to run as independent candidates for President and Vice President in the November 2024 election. On August 23, 2024, Kennedy requested to withdraw his candidacy, but WEC denied his request based on Wisconsin law, which states that a candidate who has filed nomination papers cannot decline the nomination unless they die. Consequently, WEC included Kennedy's name on the certified list of candidates.Kennedy sought judicial review of WEC's decision in the Dane County Circuit Court and filed a motion for a temporary injunction to remove his name from the ballot. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that Kennedy had not demonstrated irreparable harm, that the injunction would alter the status quo, and that he had no reasonable probability of success on the merits. The court also found that Kennedy's constitutional claims lacked legal merit.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the circuit court's decision to deny the temporary injunction. The Supreme Court's task was to determine whether the circuit court had properly exercised its discretion. The Supreme Court concluded that Kennedy failed to demonstrate that the circuit court had erred in its decision. Specifically, Kennedy did not adequately argue that the circuit court misinterpreted the relevant statute or that his constitutional claims had merit. As a result, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order denying the temporary injunction. View "Kennedy v. Wisconsin Elections Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves M.A.C., a homeless individual with mental health disorders, who was involuntarily committed in Waukesha County in 2020. In 2022, the County sought to extend M.A.C.'s commitment. However, M.A.C. was not present at the recommitment hearing, and her appointed counsel had been unable to contact her. The circuit court found M.A.C. in default and ordered her to be recommitted and involuntarily medicated. M.A.C. appealed, challenging the recommitment and involuntary medication orders on three grounds: lack of individual notice of the hearings, the unavailability of default judgment in such hearings, and insufficient evidence for her involuntary medication.The case was initially reviewed by the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the circuit court's orders. The Court of Appeals relied heavily on a previous case, Waukesha County v. S.L.L., to uphold the circuit court's decisions. M.A.C. then appealed to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court held that under Wisconsin statutes, a subject individual is entitled to notice of recommitment and involuntary medication hearings, and providing notice to counsel only is not sufficient. The court also held that default judgment is not available for recommitment or involuntary medication hearings under Wisconsin statutes. Finally, the court found that the County failed to provide sufficient evidence for M.A.C.'s involuntary medication. The court overruled the contrary holdings of the S.L.L. case. View "Waukesha County v. M.A.C." on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to several voting requirements in Wisconsin, including the requirement that absentee ballots be returned only by mail or in person to the clerk's office and not to a secure drop box. The Circuit Court for Dane County dismissed the claim related to the drop box, citing a previous decision, Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, which determined that the use of ballot drop boxes was not allowed under Wisconsin law.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin, however, disagreed with the lower court's interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court found that the language of the relevant statute, Wisconsin Statute § 6.87(4)(b)1, allows for the use of ballot drop boxes. The court noted that the statute requires that a completed absentee ballot be "mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots." The court interpreted this to mean that delivering a ballot to a drop box is a means of delivering it in person "to the municipal clerk."The court also rejected the argument that the use of drop boxes contravenes the legislative policy expressed in Wisconsin Statute § 6.84(1), which states that absentee balloting must be "carefully regulated." The court found that drop boxes are a form of regulation and are consistent with the decentralized system of election administration in Wisconsin.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin therefore reversed the order of the Circuit Court for Dane County dismissing the claim related to the drop box and remanded the case back to the lower court to reinstate the claim. View "Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Elections Commission" on Justia Law