This week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a pair of cases that present two questions at the core of an ongoing struggle between some of the most powerful forces in the state.

In the first, the seven justices will hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that could hamper the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ ability to enforce the state’s “Spills Law.” Enacted in 1978, the law requires people or companies discharging a hazardous substance “to restore the environment to the extent practicable and minimize the harmful effects from the discharge to the air, lands or waters of this state.”

The lawsuit, which the court will hear on Tuesday morning, was filed by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s powerful business lobby, in 2021. It argued that the DNR could not require people to test for so-called “forever chemicals” contamination — and require remediation if they’re present — because the agency hadn’t gone through the formal process of designating the chemicals, known as PFAS, as “hazardous substances.” A circuit court judge and the conservative District 2 Court of Appeals agreed, so the state appealed to the state Supreme Court.

The law enables the DNR to enforce the cleanup of any substance posing a risk due to concentration, quantity and toxicity: In the wrong setting, even spilled milk poses a risk. PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a family of man-made chemicals used in nonstick cookware and firefighting foam, have been linked to serious health conditions in humans.

The agency maintains that a court loss would strip its authority to compel polluters to clean up chemicals and provide emergency water under the Spills Law, cutting off residents on PFAS-contaminated French Island who have been receiving water since 2021.

This case is notable for more than just the potential environmental implications. It could also put WMC, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in state politics, at odds with the court’s liberal majority just as a potential majority-shifting court campaign gets underway.

In 2023, WMC spent $5.6 million on the race boosting conservative former Justice Daniel Kelly in his failed bid against now-Justice Janet Protasiewicz. That figure made it the third biggest spender in the race — behind Protasieicz’s campaign and liberal group A Better Wisconsin Together — with the lobbying group outspending even Kelly’s campaign.

Wisconsin Watch will be keeping tabs on how the court’s liberal justices approach this case. Will they leave the lower court ruling in place? Rule against WMC, but only offer the DNR a narrow victory? Something else? A holding in favor of the DNR could draw the ire of WMC and the state’s business community — just as Wisconsin embarks on six straight springs of Wisconsin Supreme Court elections. Keep in mind that a 2005 environmental case involving lead manufacturers helped spur the modern era of expensive, politicized Wisconsin court races.

The second case, which the justices will hear on Thursday morning, is a continuation of a July 6-1 ruling blocking the Legislature’s Republican-controlled budget committee from “vetoing” certain conservation projects. In an opinion authored by conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley, the court declared that the committee’s review of certain projects was a separation of powers violation.

The court initially only heard one of three issues raised by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers in the lawsuit. But now, it will consider another: Whether or not the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules has the authority to strike down rules created by state agencies and professional boards.

JCRAR is a 10-member committee that, under state law, currently has the ability to block administrative rules proposed and promulgated by executive branch agencies. For example, in 2023, the committee voted 6-4 along partisan lines to lift a ban on conversion therapy in Wisconsin. The ban was implemented in 2020 by a state board that supervises licensed therapists, counselors and social workers in Wisconsin. The board deemed conversion therapy to be unprofessional conduct for those professions.

Attorneys representing the governor argued the committee’s ability to throw out rules is unconstitutional, once again arguing it represents legislative overreach and is a separation of powers violation.

The case presents yet another opportunity for the court to play the role of power broker. Will it bless the committee’s current practice? Will it rule in favor of the governor, expanding his policymaking ability while curbing the authority of the Legislature? We’re looking for these answers, while also keeping tabs on whether or not it seems the justices will once again be able to reach consensus, as they did in their 6-1 ruling over the summer.

This article first appeared on Wisconsin Watch and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Want More Local News?

Civic Media

The Civic Media App