Supreme Court Strikes Down Partial Veto of Non-Appropriation Bill
June 25, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court of Wisconsin struck down Gov. Evers’ use of partial vetoes in literacy-related legislation, with Republicans arguing the vetoes were unconstitutional because the bill wasn’t a true appropriations bill and therefore not subject to a partial veto under the Wisconsin Constitution, while Gov. Evers maintained they were within his legal authority. In July 2023, Gov. Evers signed into law legislation creating a literacy program with associated financial grants for schools adopting approved reading curricula. The financial grants were created by the 2023-25 state budget bill. In separate legislation signed by Gov. Evers, guidelines for distributing this $50 million were created. Gov. Evers used his partial veto authority when signing this separate legislation. GOP legislators sued, arguing this separate bill did not actually appropriate any money and therefore was not subject to gubernatorial partial-veto authority. The court agreed.
In addition, the court also found the GOP-controlled Joint Committee on Finance acted appropriately in refusing to release nearly $50 million from the Department of Instruction that was part of the overall package designed to boost reading among Wisconsin school children. JCF had declined to release the money after Gov. Evers issued the partial veto, arguing it was improper.
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Suits Seeking New Congressional Maps
This spring, Democrat-affiliated groups filed separate suits challenging Wisconsin’s congressional boundaries, seeking to redraw the map before the 2026 midterms. The suits sought to bypass lower courts and to have the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, controlled 4-3 by judicial liberals, exercise original jurisdiction. Gov. Evers in a filing agreed, supporting the suits. June 25, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court of Wisconsin declined to hear the suits asking it to draw new maps. The decision was made without explanation. Wisconsin is currently represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by six Republicans and two Democrats.
Supreme Court Says No Need for State to Specify What’s an “Emerging Contaminant”
February 2021, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce filed suit to stop the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources from regulating “emerging contaminants” as hazardous substances under Wisconsin’s Spills Law without first identifying for the public the materials and regulatory thresholds of such materials via the rulemaking process. The rulemaking process provides the public with advance notice of what’s being regulated as a hazardous substance and an opportunity to be heard. Instead, the DNR had announced on its website that “emerging contaminants” are hazardous substances, without identifying the materials included in the term, other than to say that it includes PFAS, a broad category of around 9,000 substances.
Lower courts concluded that DNR’s regulation of “emerging contaminants” was an unlawful, unpromulgated rule and that the DNR needed to define by rulemaking what materials were covered. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin in a 5-2 decision issued June 24 disagreed, concluding the DNR need not identify via rule what are hazardous substances prior to enforcing the law against landowners and dischargers of the substances. Rather, the Court said the DNR has a great deal of discretion to enforce hazardous substances standards without first identifying them by rule.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Wisconsin’s 1849 Abortion Ban
July 2, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s liberal majority, in a 4-3 decision, struck down Wisconsin’s 1849 ban on abortions. The ban was in effect from 1849 until 1973, when the Supreme Court of the United States established a constitutional right to an abortion. Some argued the 1849 law has been in effect since the 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Democrat Attorney General Josh Kaul filed suit, arguing the 1849 law, though it remained on the books, had been superseded by subsequent laws, such as a 1985 law allowing for the abortion of an unborn child prior to viability. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin agreed, concluding Wisconsin lawmakers had created a legal framework allowing for and regulating abortion in Wisconsin, thereby essentially invalidating the 1849 law.