Wisconsin Supreme Court accepts governor's case against GOP-controlled Legislature.(Part-1)

U.S. capital Madison — On Friday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided to consider a case brought by Democratic Governor Tony Evers. Evers claims that the Republican-controlled Legislature is impeding upon fundamental governmental operations.

With the exception of the three conservative judges, the court's liberal majority was in agreement to consider the issue. On April 17, it scheduled the oral arguments.

Evers raised three points in the case, but the court only consented to consider one of them immediately. The problem stems from the fact that state conservation initiatives have been denied financing by the budget committee, which is controlled by Republicans in the legislature.

In addition, Evers had taken on a group of legislative leaders who were debating whether or not to grant salary increases to University of Wisconsin staff. However, the panel did grant the raises after the case was filed. Updates to the state's commercial construction requirements and ethical rules for licensed professionals were also blocked by a legislative committee, which Evers had previously contested.

Both matters are currently on pause until the court issues a new order, according to the court. Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, Janet Protasiewicz, and Jill Karofsky—all liberal justices—decided to accept the case. Among the conservative judges who voiced their disagreement were Chief Justice Annette Ziegler, Brian Hagedorn, and Rebecca Bradley. In her dissenting opinion, Rebecca Bradley said that the majority had "needlessly engulfed this court in the morass of politics.

"By deciding on just one of the governor's concerns and leaving the other two unresolved, the majority turns this court into a tool for the governor to force policy changes on the people without their approval," she penned. "The new majority asks, 'How high?'" whenever the political supporters of the majority suggest jumping.

Separately, Hagedorn dissented, stating that the issue was important and questioning the wisdom of jumping straight to a final decision without first establishing the facts through lower court processes.

This case has the potential to cause a paradigm change in the way state government functions and in the way this court sees the separation of powers," Hagedorn stated. "Thoroughly considered decisions from lower courts often enhance the precision of our work by outlining the arguments and providing the parties with feedback on what was successful and what was unsuccessful."