Try 3 months for $3

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up a case challenging the state’s lame-duck laws, bypassing a lower court to provide closure to a lawsuit that has thrown state government into disarray.

The court granted the plaintiffs in the case — the League of Women Voters, Black Leaders Organizing for Communities and Disability Rights for Wisconsin, among others — their request to circumvent the state Court of Appeals and set up a swift timeline scheduling oral arguments in one month.

The order signals the state’s highest court is moving swiftly to adjudicate one of several legal challenges that has incensed Republicans and empowered Democrats. The court’s eventual decision on this case is likely to be the last on the lame-duck laws due to other ongoing challenges in state and federal court.

The League brought the case in January to challenge controversial laws Republicans passed in December that were admonished by Democrats for curbing some of Gov. Tony Evers’ and Attorney General Josh Kaul’s powers before they took office.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued the Legislature illegally convened in an extraordinary session in December and legislative leaders committed an abuse of power in convening the session. GOP legislative leaders convened the extraordinary session under a process set forth in the Legislature’s internal rules.

A Dane County judge in March agreed with the plaintiffs’ thinking and blocked enforcement of the laws, allowing Evers to rescind 15 appointments to state boards former Gov. Scott Walker had installed and the Senate had confirmed during the extraordinary session.

A Wisconsin Appeals Court stayed the Dane County judge’s decision blocking the laws, but a court ruled Evers was in his authority to rescind the appointments since he did so while the lame-duck laws were temporarily suspended.

Despite the Appeals Court’s decision to stay the ruling preventing enforcement of the lame-duck laws, some of their provisions remain suspended after a Dane County judge in a second case challenging the laws brought by unions ruled they violated the separation of powers.

Subscribe to Daily Headlines

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thanks for reading. Subscribe or log in to continue.