The Wisconsin Supreme Court Grants Attorney General Control Over Settlement Funds
In a pivotal decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has reinforced the authority of the state’s Department of Justice to manage funds from multistate lawsuit settlements. This ruling, favoring Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul, marks a significant development in the protracted debate over the separation of powers within the state.
The ruling stems from a long-standing conflict between Kaul and the Republican-led Legislature, tracing back to 2018 when a series of laws were passed during a lame duck session. These laws aimed to curtail the powers of Democratic leaders who had just been elected, including Kaul and Governor Tony Evers. One such provision mandated that any funds from multistate lawsuits be deposited into Wisconsin’s general fund.
In 2021, the Legislature filed a lawsuit against Kaul, alleging that he was unlawfully depositing settlement funds into a different account, thereby circumventing the legislative budget process. During court proceedings, Kaul’s office maintained that it was adhering to the law by placing funds into the state treasury and allocating them to various programs.
Justice Rebecca Dallet, writing for the majority, clarified that Kaul was within his rights to allocate funds to specific programs, provided they remained within the general fund, which serves as the state’s primary financial account. “We conclude that the attorney general complies with (the law) when, in accordance with the straightforward language of the statute, he deposits settlement funds into the general fund,” she stated.
However, not all justices were in agreement. Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley criticized the decision, attributing it to political bias rather than legal reasoning. Justice Annette Ziegler joined her in dissent. Meanwhile, Justice Brian Hagedorn concurred with parts of the majority opinion but expressed concern over the court’s avoidance of addressing a more specific query regarding the DOJ’s authority over fund allocation.
Ongoing Legal Battles Over Lame Duck Laws
This recent decision concludes one of the numerous legal challenges against the lame duck laws. Previous rulings have also sided with the attorney general, such as a unanimous decision last year affirming the DOJ’s power to settle certain lawsuits without legislative consent. Kaul had argued that requiring legislative approval for civil settlements infringed upon executive authority.
Legal expert Caleb Gerbitz noted that while the decision addresses the handling of settlement funds, it leaves unresolved questions about the definition of such funds. He suggested that further legal action might be necessary to clarify these issues, stating, “This case is quite significant in that what happens with settlement funds is a significant question. This decision isn’t all that significant because it doesn’t provide a complete answer to that question.”
As debates linger over the role and powers of Wisconsin’s attorney general, it remains to be seen how future court decisions will shape the balance of power within the state.
