WILL filed motions to intervene in two lawsuits seeking to overturn Wisconsin’s Congressional Maps. Seeking again to defend those maps on behalf of a group of Wisconsin voters, WILL argues that these new lawsuits are time-barred, the three-judge panel lacks authority to overrule the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and any attempt to impose new maps in this manner would violate federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court allowed two new legal challenges to the state’s congressional maps to continue forward by appointing two separate three-judge panels to hear the cases. The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) had argued against such an appointment as any attempt to redraw the Congressional district lines in this manner would violate the U.S. Constitution.

WILL applauded the Wisconsin State Assembly for its action in passing two important education reforms: the Wisconsin Teacher Bill of Rights (AB 614) and the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit Opt-in Bill (AB 602).

WILL and the Center for Individual Rights (CIR) filed a major lawsuit against the Trump Administration today, targeting the foundation for many of the remaining federal DEI programs: the preference for so-called “socially disadvantaged individuals.”

On behalf of a Wisconsin parent, WILL has notified Lighthouse Learning Academy that it is prepared to take legal action over the school's refusal to provide certain curriculum materials, even though most of the items requested were non-religious, simply because some were created by a Christian publisher or contained a few religious references.

A new report from WILL, titled “Energy Choice for Wisconsin: A Free-Market Case for Community Solar,” outlines how privately financed community solar projects can expand consumer choice, strengthen the electric grid, preserve farmland, and inject market competition into Wisconsin’s monopoly utility system.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled in favor of WILL’s client, Scarlett Johnson, a Wisconsin Moms for Liberty activist sued for defamation for criticizing her school district. The Court agreed with WILL’s argument that Scarlett’s posts were statements of opinion that are not provably false and therefore cannot be defamatory.