Wmc Litigation Center

TO CREATE AN ORGANIZATION OF PERSONS INVOLVED AND/OR INTERESTED IN FURTHERING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN GREAT LAKES STATES THROUGH PROMOTING AND INSURING ADHERENCE TO DULY ENACTED LAWS AND REGULATIONS AND THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND RELEVANT STATES. THE CORPORATION ACCOMPLISHES ITS PURPOSE BY PROVIDING LEGAL REPRESENTATION, LEGAL AND POLICY EDUCATION, AND RELATED SUPPORT.

THE WMC LITIGATION CENTER ("LITIGATION CENTER") IS DEDICATED TO LESSENING THE BURDENS OF GOVERNMENT THROUGH LITIGATION AND EDUCATING THE PUBLIC ABOUT ECONOMIC FREEDOM THROUGH COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH. THE LITIGATION CENTER'S MISSION IS TO REPRESENT CLIENTS IN LEGAL ACTIONS TO FOSTER AND PROTECT THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM. THE LITIGATION CENTER DEFENDS THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND INDIVIDUALS FROM GOVERNMENT ENTITIES THAT ACT BEYOND THEIR AUTHORITY BY COMMENCING LAWSUITS, FILING AMICUS BRIEFS, AND ASSISTING OUTSIDE COUNSEL. THE LITIGATION CENTER IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDING HIGH-QUALITY LEGAL SERVICES. AS A 501(C)(3) NOT-FOR-PROFIT, PUBLIC-INTEREST LAW FIRM, THE LITIGATION CENTER DOES NOT COLLECT FEES FROM ITS CLIENTS FOR ITS SERVICES. IN SEPTEMBER 2021, THE GREAT LAKES LEGAL FOUNDATION ("LEGAL FOUNDATION"), A 501(C)(3) NOT-FOR-PROFIT, PUBLIC-INTEREST LAW FIRM, CHANGED ITS NAME TO THE WMC LITIGATION CENTER. IN CALENDAR YEAR 2021, THE LEGAL FOUNDATION AND LITIGATION CENTER REPRESENTED CLIENTS IN A TOTAL OF TEN LEGAL MATTERS. THE MATTERS FALL INTO FIVE MAIN CATEGORIES: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, SEPARATION OF POWERS, ECONOMIC LIBERTY, AND TAXATION. CLEAN WATER, INC., ET AL. V. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL. (WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT, APPEAL NUMBER 2016AP1688)IN THIS MATTER, THE LEGAL FOUNDATION FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT ON BEHALF OF TEN BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS TO CHALLENGE A STATE AGENCY'S LEGAL AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CERTAIN CONDITIONS ON A FARM'S WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT. THE LEGAL FOUNDATION ARGUED THAT THE PERMIT CONDITIONS WERE RULES THAT THE AGENCY HAD TO PROMULGATE THROUGH THE FORMAL RULEMAKING PROCESS. THE LEGAL FOUNDATION ALSO ARGUED THAT THE AGENCY LACKED EXPLICIT AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CERTAIN PERMIT CONDITIONS. THIS LITIGATION AFFECTS BROAD PUBLIC INTERESTS INVOLVING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS WITHIN WISCONSIN STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE EXTENT OF A STATE AGENCY'S POWER TO REGULATE FARMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. THE LEGAL FOUNDATION'S AMICUS PARTICIPATION WOULD BENEFIT THE PUBLIC GENERALLY BY PROTECTING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS WITHIN WISCONSIN STATE GOVERNMENT AND BY REQUIRING A PARTICULAR STATE AGENCY (THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES) TO GO THROUGH THE FORMAL RULEMAKING PROCESS BEFORE IMPOSING CERTAIN PERMIT CONDITIONS. IN 2011 WISCONSIN ACT 21, THE WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE ADDED AN "EXPLICIT AUTHORITY" REQUIREMENT IN WIS. STAT. 227.10(2M), WHICH STATES IN RELEVANT PART, "NO AGENCY MAY IMPLEMENT OR ENFORCE ANY STANDARD, REQUIREMENT, OR THRESHOLD, . . . UNLESS THAT STANDARD, REQUIREMENT, OR THRESHOLD IS EXPLICITLY REQUIRED OR EXPLICITLY PERMITTED BY STATUTE OR BY A RULE THAT HAS BEEN PROMULGATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBCHAPTER[.]" THE LEGISLATURE CREATED THIS "EXPLICIT AUTHORITY" REQUIREMENT TO REIN IN THE POWER OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND TO RESTORE THE PROPER BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES. THIS LITIGATION SOUGHT TO COMPEL THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO PROMULGATE CERTAIN RULES REGARDING WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS. PROMULGATED RULES WOULD BENEFIT THE PUBLIC BY ALLOWING FOR LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT AND BY PROVIDING CLEAR GUIDANCE TO THE PUBLIC. THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION. THE CASE IS CLOSED. THE LEGAL FOUNDATION DID NOT SEEK OR RECEIVE ANY FEES IN THIS MATTER. WISCONSIN MANUFACTURERS AND COMMERCE ET AL. V. TONY EVERS ET AL.(WAUKESHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CASE NUMBER 20-CV-1389)IN THIS MATTER, WISCONSIN GOVERNOR TONY EVERS' ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED THAT IT WOULD RELEASE THE NAMES OF ALL WISCONSIN BUSINESSES WITH OVER 25 EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE HAD AT LEAST TWO EMPLOYEES TEST POSITIVE FOR COVID-19 OR THAT HAVE HAD CLOSE CASE CONTACTS THAT WERE INVESTIGATED BY CONTACT TRACERS, AND ALSO RELEASE THE NUMBER OF KNOWN OR SUSPECTED COVID-19 CASES. THE ADMINISTRATION STATED THAT IT WOULD RELEASE THIS INFORMATION PURSUANT TO OPEN RECORDS REQUESTS. THREE BUSINESS TRADE ASSOCIATIONS FILED A LAWSUIT IN WAUKESHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT SEEKING DECLARATORY RELIEF AND AN INJUNCTION PROHIBITING THE GOVERNOR'S ADMINISTRATION FROM RELEASING THIS INFORMATION. ON BEHALF OF THREE OTHER TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, THE LEGAL FOUNDATION FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN THE WAUKESHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. THE AMICUS BRIEF ARGUED THAT THE PLANNED RELEASE WOULD VIOLATE PRIVACY LAWS AND SIGNIFICANTLY HARM RESTAURANTS AND SMALL BUSINESSES. THIS LITIGATION (INCLUDING THE LEGAL FOUNDATION'S AMICUS INVOLVEMENT) AFFECTS BROAD PUBLIC INTERESTS INVOLVING THE SCOPE OF WISCONSIN STATUTES GOVERNING CONFIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE RECORDS, INFORMATION ABOUT COVID-19, AND THE ABILITY TO BRING A PRE-RELEASE LAWSUIT UNDER WISCONSIN'S OPEN RECORDS LAW. BY SEEKING AN INJUNCTION, THIS LITIGATION WOULD BENEFIT THE PUBLIC GENERALLY BY PREVENTING THE GOVERNOR'S ADMINISTRATION FROM RELEASING INFORMATION THAT WOULD HARM THE ECONOMY AND VIOLATE PRIVACY LAWS.THE LEGAL FOUNDATION DID NOT SEEK OR RECEIVE ANY FEES IN THIS MATTER. CLEAN WISCONSIN, INC., ET AL. V. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.(WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT, APPEAL NUMBER 2018AP59)IN THIS MATTER, THE LEGAL FOUNDATION REPRESENTED EIGHT BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS WHO PARTICIPATED AS INTERVENORS. SPECIFICALLY, THE LEGAL FOUNDATION FILED TWO BRIEFS ON BEHALF OF ITS EIGHT CLIENTS IN THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT AND PARTICIPATED IN ORAL ARGUMENT IN THAT COURT. THE CASE CONCERNED THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES' AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHEN ISSUING A PERMIT FOR A HIGH-CAPACITY WELL. THE LEGAL FOUNDATION ARGUED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD NO SUCH EXPLICIT STATUTORY AUTHORITY. THIS LITIGATION AFFECTS BROAD PUBLIC INTERESTS INVOLVING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS WITHIN WISCONSIN STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE EXTENT OF A STATE AGENCY'S POWER TO CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF A HIGH-CAPACITY WELL. THE LEGAL FOUNDATION'S PARTICIPATION WOULD BENEFIT THE PUBLIC GENERALLY BY PROTECTING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS WITHIN WISCONSIN STATE GOVERNMENT AND BY REQUIRING A PARTICULAR STATE AGENCY (THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES) TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY DIRECTIVES. IN 2011 WISCONSIN ACT 21, THE WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE ADDED AN "EXPLICIT AUTHORITY" REQUIREMENT IN WIS. STAT. 227.10(2M), WHICH STATES IN RELEVANT PART, "NO AGENCY MAY IMPLEMENT OR ENFORCE ANY STANDARD, REQUIREMENT, OR THRESHOLD, . . . UNLESS THAT STANDARD, REQUIREMENT, OR THRESHOLD IS EXPLICITLY REQUIRED OR EXPLICITLY PERMITTED BY STATUTE OR BY A RULE THAT HAS BEEN PROMULGATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBCHAPTER[.]" THE LEGISLATURE CREATED THIS "EXPLICIT AUTHORITY" REQUIREMENT TO REIN IN THE POWER OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND TO RESTORE THE PROPER BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES. THIS LITIGATION CLARIFIED THE EXTENT TO WHICH THAT REQUIREMENT AFFECTED THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES' POWER WHEN ISSUING A PERMIT FOR A HIGH-CAPACITY WELL. THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION. THE CASE IS CLOSED. THE LEGAL FOUNDATION DID NOT SEEK OR RECEIVE ANY FEES IN THIS MATTER. CONTAINER LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT, LLC, V. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES(WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT, APPEAL NUMBER 2019AP1007)IN THIS MATTER, THE LITIGATION CENTER FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ON BEHALF OF A BUSINESS ASSOCIATION TO SUPPORT THE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A STATE AGENCY'S PERMITTING DECISION. THE PETITIONER SOUGHT JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A STATE AGENCY'S DETERMINATION THAT THE PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A COSTLY, TIME-CONSUMING PERMIT. TWO LOWER COURTS CONCLUDED THAT THE PETITIONER HAD NO RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THAT DETERMINATION. THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT GRANTED THE PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR REVIEW. IN THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT, THE LITIGATION CENTER FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ARGUING THAT AN ENTITY HAS A STATUTORY RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A STATE AGENCY'S DETERMINATION THAT A SPECIFIC PERMIT IS REQUIRED. THE AMICUS BRIEF EXPLAINED THAT A CONTRARY VIEW WOULD HARM WISCONSIN'S ECONOMY. THIS LITIGATION AFFECTS BROAD PUBLIC INTERESTS INVOLVING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS WITHIN WISCONSIN STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WHEN A GOVERNMENT AGENCY DETERMINES THAT A SPECIFIC PERMIT OR LICENSE IS REQUIRED. THIS LITIGATION COULD IMPACT A WIDE RANGE OF PERSONS AND BUSINESSES, INCLUDING BEAUTICIANS WHO MAY NEED A COSMETOLOGY LICENSE AND SMALL BUSINESSES WHO MAY NEED A WATER OR AIR-RELATED PERMIT. CASE EXPLANATION CONTINUED IN SCHEDULE O.