Wisconsin law permits school districts to discriminate against disabled students by refusing to permit them to open enroll into their district while letting other children do so. We sued to stop this practice, which violates federal anti-discrimination law.
Cities around the state use TIF districts as a way to give taxpayer funds to developers while claiming that the money is “free”. State law requires cities to follow very strict procedures in order to create TIF districts. When Eau Claire failed to follow those procedures, we sued to hold them accountable.
The Milwaukee Public School District refuses to transport children to private schools as it is required to do by state law. We sued to force the district to abide by its obligations.
Milwaukee refused to follow a law banning municipalities from imposing residency requirements on their employees. After the court of appeals concluded the law violated Milwaukee’s “home rule” authority (despite applying uniformly to every city in the state), we filed an amicus brief urging the supreme court to take the case. When it did, we filed an amicus brief on the merits.
Milwaukee wants to build a 2.1-mile streetcar. Milwaukee also wants to force utilities to move their lines to do so, and wants the utilities (and their customers) to bear those costs. We convinced the Public Service Commission to protect those customers by requiring Milwaukee to pay the costs itself, and the courts upheld that ruling.
We filed amicus briefs in this case, which challenges a 2011 law requiring agencies to get gubernatorial approval before implementing new rules. The supreme court disagreed with our arguments, ruling that the changes violated the Superintendent’s constitutional authority, despite express language permitting the legislature to set the Superintendent’s powers.
When Wisconsin implemented voter ID requirements, liberal groups filed federal lawsuits arguing that the law violated the rights of minorities. We provided legal counsel for a key state witness during the trial held for these consolidated cases. We also filed an amicus brief in the 7th Circuit. While it was rejected, the Seventh Circuit did uphold the law.
This challenge to the voter ID law argued that the presentation of an ID was an “additional qualification” to vote not permitted by the Wisconsin Constitution. In amicus briefs, WILL argued that it was not an additional qualification, but rather a method of establishing that a voter meets the existing qualifications. The court of appeals and supreme court agreed, upholding the law.
This challenge to the voter ID law argued that it denied minorities the right to vote, because they were less likely to have an ID. We filed amicus briefs justifying the law by showing that voter fraud exists in Wisconsin and can swing local elections that are sometimes decided by single-digit margins. The supreme court upheld the law.
Milwaukee decided that a small plot of open land a northside church used for numerous religious and charitable purposes was “unnecessary”, and tried to tax it. We sued and convinced a judge not only that the land was necessary, but that state law prohibiting the church from challenging their exemption denial until they paid the tax was unconstitutional.
The ACA requires congress and staff to purchase their insurance plans through exchanges, with no tax-free employer contribution. Obama’s Administration defied the law and continued to make tax-free contributions. On behalf of Senator Ron Johnson and one of his staff, we sued. But the courts concluded that because they “benefited” from the illegal actions, they lacked standing to challenge them.
Nevada created an education savings account program to expand school choice. Predictably, teacher unions challenged the law as unconstitutional. We filed an amicus brief in support of the law, which the Nevada Supreme Court found did not unconstitutionally spend public funds for a religious purpose.
The Obama administration required all school districts to allow students to use whichever bathroom they wished. While we take no position on how schools should address transgender children, we object to bureaucrats re-interpreting federal statutes and issuing formal requirements without using the proper procedures. We filed an amicus brief to fight against federal interference with a purely local issue.
Support Our Mission & Champion Liberty