Unions filed another Act 10 lawsuit in 2019, arguing that the law was unconstitutional because unions have a constitutional right to collectively bargain. We intervened on behalf of a teacher who objects to being forced to pay union dues to defend the law.
The City of Lake Geneva promulgated an ordinance that allows the city to search the homes of residents who occasionally rent their home for periods of less than 29 days at virtually any time without a warrant or, alternatively, to fine them if they refuse to consent to a warrantless search. These requirements violate the Fourth Amendment rights of Lake Geneva residents, including the Plaintiffs. We filed this suit to vindicate those rights.
WILL issued letter to DPI warning their actions to revoke license violate First Amendment
The News: Attorneys at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & ...
The Milwaukee County Board took up decennial redistricting at a public meeting without putting it on the agenda. In our first case (and our first victory) we obtained a declaration that they violated the Open Meetings Law in doing so.
The Baldwin-Woodville School District’s Board of Education went into closed session and voted to pay Christmas bonuses (essentially in lieu of pension and insurance payments the district could no longer make under Act 10). We filed an open meetings complaint with the Attorney General pointing out that the meeting was illegal, and he agreed.
The University of Wisconsin refused to turn over course syllabi and other documents in response to a records request. We filed a lawsuit, and obtained a settlement in which our clients were able to obtain everything they needed for their research into university education programs.
State Senator Jon Erpenbach redacted the names of hundreds of people who contacted him regarding Act 10 from emails he produced in response to a records request. We sued and obtained a published decision from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals requiring him to release the names of public employees who wrote him.
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.