Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court rejected Donald Trump's effort to invalidate more than 220,000 votes from Dane and Milwaukee Counties in the 2020 presidential election, holding that the challenge to indefinitely confined voter ballots was without merit and that laches barred relief on the remaining three categories of challenged ballots.Petitioners brought this action seeking to invalidated a sufficient number of Wisconsin ballots to change Wisconsin's certified election results, focusing its objections on four different categories of ballots applying only to voters in Dane and Milwaukee County. Among those challenged ballots were ballots cast by voters who claimed indefinitely confined status since March 25, 2020. The Supreme Court concluded that the Petitioners were not entitled to the requested relief, holding (1) the challenge to the indefinitely confined voter ballots was meritless on its face; and (2) the other three categories of challenged ballots failed under the doctrine of laches. View "Trump v. Biden" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Governor Evers' Emergency Order #12 did not render all Wisconsin electors "indefinitely confined," thereby obviating the requirement of a valid photo identification to obtain an absentee ballot.Petitioners, Mark Jefferson and the Republican Part of Wisconsin, filed a petition for original action seeking a declaration that Respondents lacked the authority to issue an interpretation of Wisconsin's election law allowing all electors in Dane County to obtain an absentee ballot without photo identification and that the Emergency Order did not authorize all Wisconsin voters to obtain an absentee ballot without a photo identification. The Supreme Court answered (1) Wis. Stat. 6.86(2)(a) requires that each individual elector make his or her own determination as to whether the elector is indefinitely confined, and an elector is indefinitely confined for purposes of section 6.86(2)(a) for only the enumerated reasons therein; and (2) Respondents' interpretation of Wisconsin election laws was erroneous. View "Jefferson v. Dane County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court's judgment and order denying Defendant's postconviction motion to withdraw his Alford plea, holding that Defendant did not meet his burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that manifest injustice would result if he were not permitted to withdraw his plea.Defendant entered an Alford plea to second-degree sexual assault of a child. After he was sentenced, Defendant filed a postconviction motion seeking to withdraw his Alford plea, arguing that the circuit court failed to establish strong proof of guilt as to each element of the offense. The circuit court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record demonstrated that there was a sufficient factual basis to support strong proof of Defendant's guilty for each of the two elements of the offense. View "State v. Nash" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by holding that Wis. Stat. 803.09(2m) grants the Wisconsin Legislature the authority to represent the State's interest in the validity of state laws.The question here arose in the context of litigation in federal court over election-related laws. The Wisconsin Legislature was denied standing to appeal an adverse ruling below. The Seventh Circuit subsequently requested that the Supreme Court decide whether, under section 803.09(2m), the Wisconsin Legislature has the authority to represent the State's interest in the validity of state laws. The Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that the Legislature does have that authority. View "Democratic National Committee v. Bostelmann" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioners' petition for leave to commence an original action and motion for temporary injunctive relief in this election matter, holding that it was too late to grant Petitioners any form of relief that would be feasible and that would not cause confusion and undue damage to the Wisconsin electors and the other candidates in the various races on the general election ballot.Petitioners were the Green Party's candidates for President and Vice President of the United States. Because the Commission failed to certify at least 2000 valid signatures Petitioners filed a petition for leave to commence an original action and a motion for temporary injunctive relief asking that the Supreme Court order that their names be placed on Wisconsin's 2020 fall general election ballot. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding (1) Petitioners delayed seeking relief in a situation where hundreds, if not thousands, of absentee ballots have already been mailed to electors; and (2) therefore, this Court declines to exercise its original jurisdiction due to the lack of sufficient time to complete its review and award any effective relief without completely upsetting the election. View "Hawkins v. Wisconsin Elections Commission" on Justia Law

In this original action requesting a declaration that the governor exceeded his constitutional authority in partially vetoing appropriation bills the Supreme Court declared that the vetoes to the school bus modernization fund, the local roads improvement fund, and the vapor products tax were unconstitutional and invalid.Petitioners asserted that four series of partial vetoes in 2019 Wis. Act 9 - the state's 2019-21 biennial budget bill - were unconstitutional. While no rationale had the support of a majority of the Supreme Court, a majority reached a conclusion with respect to the constitutionality of each series of vetoes. The Supreme Court declared rights such that the vetoes to the school bus modernization fund, local roads improvement fund, and vapor products tax were unconstitutional and granted relief such that the portions of the enrolled bills that were vetoed are in full force and effect as drafted by the legislature. View "Bartlett v. Evers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this original action challenging whether two partial vetoes in the 2017-19 biennial budget exceeded the governor's constitutional authority, holding that this action was barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.Two of the governor's vetoes struck individual digits from dates written in numeral form. Petitioners argued that the digit vetoes violated the constitutional prohibition against creating new words by striking individual letters in words. The biennial budget was enacted in September 2017, and Petitioners waited until October 2019 to file this action. Respondents urged the Supreme Court not to reach the merits in Petitioners' petition for original action and instead to bar the action pursuant to the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court dismissed the original action, holding that where the 2017-19 biennium has closed and a new biennial budget as since been enacted relying in part on the law enacted in 2017, Respondents established the elements of laches and demonstrated that application of the equitable doctrine was appropriate in this case. View "Wisconsin Small Businesses United, Inc. v. Brennan" on Justia Law

In this case requiring the Supreme Court to determine the scope of the authority of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) to recoup payments made to Medicaid service providers the Supreme Court held that DHS does not have the authority to enforce its recoupment policy.Plaintiffs, Kathleen Papa and Professional Homecare Providers, Inc. (collectively, PHP), challenged DHS's recoupment policy as it had been enforced against PHP nurses to recover payments made for services they provided to Medicaid patients. PHP claimed that DHS recoups payments nurses earned and received for their Medicaid services because the nurses' supporting records contained documentation shortcomings. The Supreme Court held (1) DHS may recoup Medicaid payments from service providers only in cases where DHS cannot verify certain facts; and (2) DHS's recoupment policy exceeds its authority. View "Papa v. Wisconsin Department of Health Services" on Justia Law

In this case arising from the enactment of 2017 Wis. Act 369 and 2017 Wis. Act 370 the Supreme Court held that Plaintiffs did not meet their high burden to demonstrate that the challenged provisions were unconstitutional in all of their applications, and therefore, the motion to dismiss the facial challenges to these claims should have been granted.The acts at issue were passed by the legislature and signed by the governor after the 2018 election but before the legislature, governor, and attorney general were sworn into office. Plaintiffs - several labor organizations and individual taxpayers - filed suit against the leaders of both houses of the legislature, the Governor, and the Attorney General, claiming that many of the enacted provisions violate separation of powers principles. The legislative defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that for all provisions where arguments were sufficiently developed, the legislative defendants successfully showed that the motion to dismiss the facial challenge to these laws should have been granted. View "Service Employees International Union, Local 1 v. Vos" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming in part the order of the circuit court that Appellant pay restitution to the victims of his crime, holding that a civil settlement did not preclude the restitution ordered and that the restitution order was a reasonable exercise of the circuit court's discretion under the applicable law and facts presented.Appellant collided with T.K.'s vehicle, resulting in T.K.'s death. Appellant and his insurance company reached a civil settlement with T.K.'s adult children. Appellant subsequently pled no contest to homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle. The circuit court ordered restitution to the adult children. The court of appeals reduced the amount of restitution because the amount included income lost as a result of the adult children's spouses missing work due to Appellant's criminal conduct. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals (1) properly determined that the civil settlement did not preclude the circuit court from ordering restitution; and (2) erred by reducing the restitution amount because a victim suffers actual pecuniary damages when his or her spouse does not work, as the victim is a member of the marital community that is affected by the loss of income. View "State v. Muth" on Justia Law