Select Category
- All
- General
- Press Releases
- Uncategorized
- WILL News
- Farmview v. Evers
- Education Reform
- In the News
- Open Government
- WILL v. DPI
- Olsen v. NWTC
- General Commentary (Blog)
- St. Augustine v. Evers
- School Choice Wisconsin v. DPI
- Koschkee v. Evers
- Espinoza v. Montana
- VWF v. Eau Claire TID 12
- LWV v. Legislature
- K-12
- Education in WI
- K-12 Finance
- Health Care
- Act 10 Litigation
- Lueders v. Krug
- Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin
- Shepherd's Watch
- VWF v. Eau Claire
- Bartlett v. Evers
- Mattoon v. Antigo
- WEC Complaint
- Case Updates
- SCWI v. DPI
- WILL v. MMSD
- Occupational Licensing
- Reports
- Religion
- Olguin v. DPI
- BCTA v. Brown County
- Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
- Hunter Nation v. WDNR
- Michigan v DeVos
- Washington V. DeVos
- WILL v RUSD
- Lindoo v. Evers
- Original Action v. Dane County Health
- DNC v. Bostellman
- SCWA v. Bowersox
- Gymfinity v. Dane County
- Free Markets
- Opportunity
- Regulatory Reform
- Law
- Constitutional Government
- School Choice
- Streetcar Challenge
- WEAC v. Walker
- Madison Teachers v. Walker
- Hoekstra v. City of Bayfield
- Rice v. Milw. County Board
- Baldwin-Woodville Sch. Dist.
- WPN v. Myse
- NCTQ v. UW Bd. of Regents
- JEAMEC v. Milwaukee
- MacIver v. Erpenbach
- LWV v. Walker
- NAACP v. Walker
- Voter ID Litigation
- Vanden Boogart v. Christensen
- ER Commentary
- Marone v. MATC
- Rice v. Milw. Co. Bd. 2013
- Laborers v. Walker
- Rosno v. WERC
- Krueger v. Appleton S.D.
- Coyne v. Walker
- McCutcheon v. FEC
- Young v. GAB
- WILL v. DOJ
- Frank v. Walker
- Johnson v. OPM
- Lacroix v. KUSD
- Ibrahim v. Milwaukee
- CRG Network v. GAB
- Highland Memorial v. Wisconsin
- Milewski v. Town of Dover
- John Doe Litigation
- KEA v. WERC
- Intl. Assoc. of Machinists v. Wisconsin
- Gerhard v. Green Bay
- Blaska v. MMSD
- Milwaukee Police Association v. Milwaukee
- Kittle v. Jefferson County
- McAdams v. Marquette
- SW v. Evers
- Center for Competitive Federalism
- Duncan v. Nevada
- Krist Oil
- In re GG
- SCOTUS
- DOJ FOIA lawsuit
- Smith v. Brancel
- St. Joan Antida v. MPS
- Gill v. Whitford
- Smith v. Brancel
- City of Bloomfield v. Felix
- TetraTech v. DOR
- Christie v. NCAA
- Civil Asset Forfeiture
- Isthmus v. Madison Police Department
- Roth v. Brostoff
- Murphy v. NCAA
- Lair v. Mangan
- CRG v. Stamper
- American Legion v. American Humanist Association
- Madison Police Oversight Board Notice of Claim
- Becker v. Dane County
- MPS Union Leave
- Madison Bird Glass NOC
- 21-23 State Budget
- DOC Letter
- Rabiebna v HEAB
- Equal Protection
- Equal Protection Project
- Faust v. Vilsack
- WPT v Town of Buchanan
- Vitolo v. Guzman
- Kettle Moraine Parental Rights
- Election Integrity
- Tiegan v WEC
- Elmbrook Demand Letter/Books
- Swimply
- Johnson v. WEC
- Individual Liberties
- Constitutional Government and Rule of Law
- Economic Freedom
- Education Reform
- Equality
- Policy
- Healthcare
- K-12 Education
- Regulatory Reform
- Free Markets
- Opportunity
- Election Integrity
- Petition
- Legislative Priorities
- nuziard
- Cases
- Amendments - August 13th
- Preserving Democracy Project
- Student Proficiency
- COVID-19
Conservative “Citizens-Only” Group Sues to Protect Freedom of Speech in Wisconsin Elections
On behalf of Americans for Citizen Voting (ACV), the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) filed a lawsuit seeking an emergency order blocking Wisconsin's new law restricting who can circulate nomination papers. The law was recently signed by Governor Tony Evers.
Court Grants WILL Motion to Dismiss, Dismisses 2nd Redistricting Case
A three-judge panel today granted WILL’s motion to dismiss, ending a lawsuit brought against Wisconsin’s current congressional maps.
WILL Adds New Deputy Counsel, Expands Litigation Capacity
WILL is proud to announce the addition of Rebecca Furdek as Deputy Counsel. Her hire reflects WILL’s continued growth and commitment to litigating high-stakes cases promoting free speech, economic liberty, and equal rights.
Your Property Tax Bill in 2030
By 2030, many Wisconsin taxpayers could face thousands in new taxes, with costs falling heaviest on local taxpayers even under the most optimistic assumptions about new state aid. The interactive calculator we released makes these impacts concrete. Policymakers and voters should carefully weigh whether this path truly serves students and communities or simply expands government at the expense of hardworking Wisconsin families.
WI Regulation Violates New SCOTUS Precedent Regarding Talk Therapy
Wisconsin Family Action, and WILL’s client Joy Buchman are warning Governor Tony Evers and his Administration to immediately cease any enforcement of Wis. Admin. Code. § MPSW 20.02(25), a rule banning consensual, client-driven talk therapy from a perspective the government disfavors. The rule constitutes viewpoint discrimination, similar to the Colorado law recently struck down in Chiles v. Salazar.
WILL Represents Coalition of Parents, Taxpayers, and Schools to Protect Choice Program and Taxpayers
WILL represents a group of Wisconsin taxpayers, parents, and choice schools in a motion to intervene in Wisconsin PTA v. Wisconsin State Assembly. The complaint in that case seeks to have the judiciary determine the level and distribution of funding for education in this State rather than leave those decisions to the Legislature and seeks to reduce or eliminate Wisconsin’s School Choice Programs.
New Richmond Parents for Strong Schools v. New Richmond School District
New Richmond Parents for Strong Schools has filed a federal lawsuit against the New Richmond School District, alleging that its bathroom policy violates the rights of high school girls under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. WILL represents the Association—which includes both parents and female students—seeking an end to the district’s policy and a declaration that the girls’ civil rights were violated by the district’s actions.
Wisconsin Parents & High School Girls Sue New Richmond School District
New Richmond Parents for Strong Schools has filed a federal lawsuit against the New Richmond School District, alleging that its bathroom policy violates the rights of high school girls under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. WILL represents the Association—which includes both parents and female students—seeking an end to the district’s policy and a declaration that the girls’ civil rights were violated by the district’s actions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 183
- 184
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 194
- 195
- 196
- 197
- 198
- 199
- 200
- 201
- 202
- 203
- 204
- 205
No results found.