Blog

IBRAHIM V. MILWAUKEE

For decades, Milwaukee had an arbitrary limit on the number of taxi cab licenses issued by the city. WILL filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit brought by the Institute for Justice, and a court struck down the cap.

ROSNO V. WERC

When Judge Colas held the Wisconsin Employment Relation Commission in contempt in the Madison Teachers case for attempting to hold recertification elections, it created confusion around the state. We sued WERC in another county, seeking a declaration that WERC must hold elections. WERC stipulated to a judgment directing them to hold such elections, and then the supreme court vacated Colas’s contempt order.

MARONE V. MATC

Milwaukee Area Technical College bargained with its employee unions in violation of Act 10, despite warnings from WILL. On behalf of an MATC instructor, we sued the school. The college and professors’ union eventually conceded that their collective bargaining agreements were void.

LACROIX V. KENOSHA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Kenosha was one of a few school districts to negotiate with its employee unions in violation of Act 10. On behalf of a teacher and Kenosha taxpayer, we sued and were successful in having the collective bargaining agreement voided.

KEA V. WERC

After one judge ruled that the Kenosha Education Association was still subject to Act 10, KEA sought a ruling from another judge that it was not subject to Act 10. We informed that new judge of the ongoing case and binding ruling, criticizing KEA for its blatant forum shopping. That judge stayed the new case, eventually dismissing it.

BLASKA V. MMSD / SANNES V. MMSD

The Madison Metropolitan School District negotiated with its teachers unions in violation of Act 10. We sued to stop them, but the Dane County Circuit Court concluded that because one of the unions had won a temporary victory (which the Wisconsin Supreme Court overruled, declaring Act 10 constitutional), the collective bargaining agreement was lawful.

HIGHLAND MEMORIAL V. WISCONSIN

Wisconsin prohibits cemetery owners from owning or operating a funeral home and vice versa. They can’t even have a funeral home operated by somebody else on their cemetery grounds! We think the government has no legitimate interest in limiting people’s choices this way, and we filed a lawsuit challenging the law, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed.

HOEKSTRA V. CITY OF BAYFIELD

Seeking to protect the local bed & breakfast owners, Bayfield passed an ordinance requiring anybody who wanted to run a B&B during the summer months to live in the city at least six months each year. We filed a federal lawsuit because this discriminated against owners who lived (most of the time) in other states. To settle the lawsuit, Bayfield amended its ordinance.