WMC Litigation Center

The WMC Litigation Center ("Litigation Center") is dedicated to lessening the burdens of government through Litigation and educating the public about economic freedom and related issues through communications and outreach. The Litigation Center's core 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 in select cases. 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 calendar year 2023, the Litigation Center represented clients in a total of 12 legal matters. The matters fall into seven main categories: administrative law, environmental law, separation of powers, economic liberty, property rights, government transparency, and taxation. Wisconsin manufacturers and commerce, Inc. v. village of pewaukee(wisconsin court of appeals, case number 2023ap690)the Litigation Center is representing a not-for-profit business trade association in this matter. This matter seeks declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting further enforcement of the village of pewaukee's so-called transportation user fee. The village imposes this fee on all developed property within the village, with limited exceptions. The Litigation Center is arguing that this fee is illegal. The Litigation Center filed this appeal in 2023. If successful, this lawsuit will benefit the public by preventing local governments from illegally creating new taxes in circumvention of legal limits on tax increases. This Litigation affects virtually all property owners in the village of pewaukee. It also affects broad public interests involving the power of local governments to adopt new fees and taxes. Several local governments in Wisconsin have adopted a transportation fee similar to the one being challenged in this matter, and several other local governments in Wisconsin are considering adopting such a fee. This Litigation seeks to set a judicial precedent declaring that this type of fee is illegal in order to prevent other communities from adopting or enforcing a similar fee. The Litigation Center did not seek or obtain any fees in this matter. Ruffolo v. Wisconsin department of natural resources(u.s. district court for the western district of Wisconsin, case number 23-cv-635)the Litigation Center filed this lawsuit in 2023 on behalf of two owners of a small bicycle and skateboard shop. The Wisconsin department of natural resources (dnr) sent the plaintiffs a "responsible party" letter, stating that they were legally responsible for cleaning up underground petroleum contamination at their commercial property, even though the petroleum contamination likely was present there 20 or more years before they purchased the property. In this lawsuit, the Litigation Center argues that Wisconsin's "spills law" does not impose cleanup liability on "innocent landowners and "innocent buyers like the plaintiffs in this case. The Litigation Center alternatively argues that such liability is unconstitutional. This lawsuit seeks to benefit the public generally by eliminating "innocent landowner and "innocent buyer" liability under Wisconsin's spills law. This form of liability is patently unfair and is bankrupting homeowners and small businesses across Wisconsin. The Litigation Center agreed to withdraw a request for attorney fees in this matter. The Litigation Center has not received any fees in this matter. Wisconsin dairy alliance Inc. v. Wisconsin department of natural resources (calumet county circuit court, case number 2023cv66)the Litigation Center filed this lawsuit in 2023 on behalf of two organizations that represent dairy farmers. This lawsuit challenges the validity of two administrative rules adopted by the Wisconsin department of natural resources (dnr). One of those rules requires certain livestock farms to have a wastewater-discharge permit regardless of whether the dnr can prove that they are discharging wastewater. The other rule requires certain livestock farms to have a wastewater-discharge permit to qualify for the stormwater-discharge exemption from liability and permitting requirements. This lawsuit aims to benefit the public generally by clarifying that the dnr cannot require an owner or operator of a "point source" of water pollution to obtain a wastewater-discharge permit if the dnr cannot prove that the point source is discharging a pollutant into a water of the state. This lawsuit also aims to benefit the public generally by reducing regulatory costs for dairy farms, thereby helping to lower the cost of food and benefit the economy of rural Wisconsin communities that rely heavily on the agricultural sector. The Litigation Center did not seek or obtain any fees in this matter. Minks v. city of neenah(winnebago county circuit court, case number 23cv258)the Litigation Center filed this lawsuit in 2023 on behalf of four residents and taxpayers in the city of neenah, Wisconsin. This lawsuit challenges the validity of neenah's sign ordinance. The lawsuit alleges that the sign ordinance violates the first amendment right to free speech in several ways. This lawsuit seeks to benefit the public generally by protecting the constitutional free-speech rights of neenah residents and businesses. This lawsuit also seeks to benefit the public generally by setting judicial precedent striking down this type of ordinance, thereby encouraging other Wisconsin municipalities to repeal similar sign ordinances or at least providing judicial precedent for challenging those other ordinances. In the complaint in this matter, the Litigation Center included a request for attorney fees. The Litigation Center has not received any fees in this matter. Binversie v. town of eureka(no court case yet)in october 2023, the Litigation Center served a notice of claim" on the town of eureka in polk county, Wisconsin on behalf of two residents and taxpayers in eureka. A notice of claim is generally a prerequisite to a lawsuit against a Wisconsin municipality. In its notice of claim, the Litigation Center alleged that a eureka ordinance unlawfully imposes several monetary and permitting requirements on certain livestock farms. This lawsuit seeks to benefit the public generally by preventing the town from spending taxpayer money enforcing an unlawful ordinance. This lawsuit also seeks to benefit the public generally by removing the town's onerous and unlawful restrictions on livestock farms, thereby allowing livestock farms to maintain affordable prices for their products and generally promoting the agricultural sector of this rural community's economy. This lawsuit also seeks to benefit the public generally by setting judicial precedent striking down this type of ordinance. Several other municipalities in Wisconsin have a virtually identical ordinance, and at least one of municipality is considering adopting such an ordinance. The Litigation Center did not seek or obtain any fees in this matter. Wisconsin manufacturers and commerce Inc. v. Wisconsin department of justice(dane county circuit court, case no. 2023cv3275)the Litigation Center filed this lawsuit in 2023 on behalf of a trade organization that had submitted a public records request to the Wisconsin department of justice (doj). The doj denied the public records request, claiming that every responsive document was privileged as an attorney-client communication or as attorney work product. The request sought documents showing communications between the doj and a private law firm that the Wisconsin state government had hired to sue Wisconsin businesses for using and manufacturing certain lawful chemicals. This lawsuit seeks to benefit the public generally by compelling a government agency to publicly disclose certain documents pertaining to an issue of statewide interest. Government transparency is in the public's general interest. In the complaint in this matter, the Litigation Center included a request for attorney fees. The Litigation Center has not received any fees in this matter. Case explanation continued in schedule o.