|
By Alexandria Staubach
More than 60 people appeared at a virtual Department of Corrections hearing Tuesday morning to comment on the Department of Corrections’ failure to implement a decade-old law that could change revocations statewide. Attendees raised personal, ethical, and legal arguments about the DOC’s proposed new administrative rule to implement 2013 Wisconsin Act 196. DOC proposed the new rule two weeks ago. As WJI reported last week, Act 196 requires the DOC to develop a list of sanctions that may be imposed for the most common violations, offering “clear and immediate consequences for violations.” The law also mandates that any rule developed by DOC take into account the impact of revocation on an offender’s employment and family. Advocates say that the DOC until now has largely ignored Act 196, which passed with bipartisan support. Participants at today’s hearing said the proposed rule remains insufficient to bring DOC into compliance with the law. The Wisconsin Legislative Council has said that the current rule “does not set forth a list of sanctions for the most common violations, nor does it explain what specific evidenced-based responses may be applied to a violation (e.g., when revocation is the required response). Instead, it implies that the list of sanctions and responses will be contained in a document somewhere outside the administrative rules.” Many at today’s hearing shared personal stories about how lengthy and unpredictable terms of supervision have impacted them. “It feels arbitrary and excessive,” said JenAnn Bauer, who has served eight years of supervision, which she said was more than 75% of any possible prison sentence. She said that despite making significant payments toward restitution, fees for extended supervision and her financial obligations to the court system keep growing. “I feel trapped in a cage made of numbers, not bars,” she said. Sean Wilson, Senior Director of Organizing and Partnerships at Dream.org, also expressed concerned about the impact of fees accrued during supervision. He said the proposed rule would actually codify profits into supervision, giving private vendors control over fees. A section of the proposed rule says “a vendor is authorized to charge a fee to probationers, parolees, and persons on extended supervision to cover the cost of supervision and administration of the contract.” Wilson called the DOC’s proposed rule a “missed opportunity” because the rule continues to be “focused on managing people rather than their success.” He said he recognized that DOC faces significant issues in staffing, but elsewhere in the nation departments use technology like kiosks to reduce the burden of check-ins on supervisees who are least likely to reoffend. Marianne Olson, an advocate with Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing who has been on supervision for eight years and has another 18 to go, said “people are being sent back (to prison) not to protect public safety but to punish past behavior,” in violation of federal law. Supervision “should be an opportunity for restoration, not retaliation” she said, calling extended supervision “retaliation disguised as support.” Shannon Ross of The Community criticized the DOC for seemingly not engaging any formerly incarcerated people in developing the rule. “A lot of us would be great in those rooms at the end of these things,” he said. WISDOM's Tom Gilbert, who has met with DOC about this issue since 2019, said the decisions that the DOC and its “agents make every day regarding people under your supervision, widely affect families, employers, health care providers, social services providers, schools—in other words, whole communities and this whole state.” The public comment period on the proposed rule will remain open through August 8. Instructions for submitting comments can be found here.
0 Comments
By Alexandria Staubach
The Wisconsin Department of Corrections will hold a virtual hearing on July 8 for public comments on proposed new rules that could improve supervision and avoid revocations, though an advocate says the rules could be even better. More than a decade ago, the Legislature passed 2013 Wisconsin Act 196, which says the DOC “shall” create rules for a system of short-term sanctions for violations of supervision conditions, with “a list of sanctions to be imposed for the most common violations.” The rules were to give flexibility in imposing sanctions while providing “offenders with clear and immediate consequences for violations.” Implementation of the law had the potential to eliminate harsh revocation prison sentences and dramatically reduce the prison population. Instead, in 2019, the DOC created an administrative rule that an advocate says gives lip service to the law and continues opaque standards that prop up incarceration as the primary vehicle for revocation sanctions. “The rule was one sentence,” WISDOM’s Tom Gilbert recently told WJI. “It said they will adopt an evidence-based response to violations, which is what they had before the law was passed.” Gilbert calls the current administrative rule “wasted words and paper.” He strongly believes that the current rule does little to address the requirements imposed by the law. “I understand the difference between the word ‘shall’ and the word ‘may,'" Gilbert said. “When I learned about Act 196 and its potential for changing the way things are done and the consequences, I thought this could be a game changer,” said Gilbert. On behalf of WISDOM, Gilbert has been meeting with DOC about the law and rule since 2019. WISDOM is a statewide network of faith-based organizations and others advocating for racial, social and economic justice. In 2024, more than 8,000 people were admitted to Wisconsin’s prisons, and roughly 60% of those admissions were based on revocations, per DOC data. Act 196 was designed to ensure that short-term sanctions for individuals who violate the rules of their probation, parole, deferred sentence, or community supervision are tailored and take several individual factors into account. While correcting the offender’s behavior, providing proportionate consequences, and protecting the public are all objectives, the law requires DOC also to ensure “that efforts to minimize the impact on an offender’s employment” and “efforts to minimize the impact on an offender’s family” are made when imposing sanctions. Gilbert said that if DOC followed the law and considered the impacts on a person’s employment and family, it would be a radical departure from its current Electronic Case Reference Manual, which “says very little about these things.” The statute also requires DOC to be transparent about specific sanctions for the common types of rule violations. Before Act 196 passed, and continuing today, DOC has determined revocation sanctions using an evidenced-based, but proprietary, tool called “the Compass,” Gilbert said. “Because it’s a proprietary tool, no one can see how (DOC) arrives at their decisions." Defendants and defense attorneys have no way of knowing what sanctions will be imposed for what violations or how decisions to revoke are made, he said. Proper implementation of Act 196 through an improved rule could require DOC to set forth a clear list of sanctions for the most common offenses. “People would know in advance,” and “that kind of transparency is sadly lacking in supervision today,” said Gilbert. This year, DOC proposed new rules, which are the subject of the July 8 public hearing. After the hearing, interested individuals will have 30 days to submit written comments. Gilbert said the proposed rules “still will not implement the law” because they merely quote the eight requirements of Act 196 and fail to develop the mandated system of short-term sanctions. He called this a “conscious omission, not an oversight.” However, “the release of the proposed Act 196 rules for public comment provides a real opportunity to communicate our vision of a community corrections system that focuses on restoration, both of affected individuals and the communities in which they and we live,” Gilbert told WJI. More information about the hearing and how to make public comments can be found here.  The packed meeting of Milwaukee's Equal Rights Commission at Milwaukee City Hall on June 18, 2025, regarding Milwaukee Police Department's use of facial recognition technology. Photograph by Emilio De Torre. The Milwaukee Police Department claimed in a recent hearing that it is being transparent with the public about its plan to license facial recognition technology, but the department has been using the technology behind closed doors for more than two years. MPD has been borrowing the technology from neighboring police departments. Milwaukee’s Equal Rights Commission held a public hearing on June 18 regarding MPD’s proposal to acquire two licenses for facial recognition technology. MPD Chief of Staff Heather Hough began her remarks by telling ERC commissioners and the packed hearing room that “Post Act 12, the Milwaukee Police Department . . . does not have to be engaged in these conversations,” but said the department wanted to take the plan to the community. Hough likened the department’s use of the technology to date as sharing passwords on the streaming service Netflix. “We asked our neighbors for too many cups of sugar,” said at the hearing. MPD’s use of the technology currently operates without a standard operating procedure or oversight. While community members attending the ERC hearing held neon signs that stated “FRT is inherently biased,” Hough spun to a different aspect of bias. As though inspired by the phrase “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” Hough said the technology is only biased when the user is biased. She insisted that the two individuals with sole access to the two licenses would not use it in a biased way. MPD showed slides noting more than a dozen instances of prior use of facial recognition technology to assist in apprehending a criminal suspect. The department also shared details of at least three cases when the information led to criminal charges. MPD Major Crimes Division Captain David Anderson described identification of one suspect using facial recognition technology. The results included three individuals who were a positive match rating 97%, 95% or 93%. The individual ultimately charged corresponded with the 93% match. ERC Commissioner (and WJI Policy Analyst) Alexandria Staubach replied that three matches for one individual rating 97%, 95% and 93% demonstrate the real bias issue and called the technology “notoriously inaccurate,” especially for Black and brown individuals. Staubach said MPD’s example shows that the results are “inherently unreliable.” ERC Vice Chair Jacqueline Cook shared Staubach’s concern and said that the facial recognition software on her phone permits her daughter to open it. Hough initially disclosed MPD’s use of the technology at a Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission meeting in March. That meeting centered on MPD’s new drone program. FPC Commissioner Krissie Fung had posed a hypothetical in which MPD’s drones could be updated with facial recognition technology and asked Hough how MPD would deal with software updates they could not control. Hough responded then that the department was already using facial recognition technology on “a case-by-case basis,” but that the technology was a separate issue from the drones. Fung attended last week’s ERC hearing and spoke in opposition to MPD’s use of facial recognition technology. Fung highlighted that MPD has been using the technology “for years” and that “MPD did not choose to be transparent until they were forced to,” referencing Hough’s comments that the department could no longer borrow licenses from partner jurisdictions and now wanted to acquire their own. When asked at the ERC hearing whether MPD had formally brought their prior use to the attention of the Fire and Police Commission, FPC Executive Director Leon Todd said they had not. 2023 Wisconsin Act 12, mentioned by Hough as allowing MPD to purchase the facial recognition technology licenses without another body’s approval, largely gutted oversight of the MPD by the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission. Nevertheless, the statute says the FPC must “conduct at least once each year a policy review of all aspects of the operations of the police and fire departments of the city.” And Milwaukee’s Common Council can reverse any MPD policy or standard operating procedure with a two-thirds majority vote. While the common council has not altered any standard operating procedure since Act 12 took effect, ERC Commissioner Tony Snell shared at the hearing that several alders had in fact written to Chief of Police Jeffrery Norman opposing the department’s plan to obtain facial recognition technology.  Attendees and WJI Policy Analyst and commission member Alexandria Staubach at the Milwaukee Equal Rights Commission meeting at Milwaukee City Hall on June 18, 2025, about Milwaukee Police Department's plan to purchase facial recognition technology licenses. Photograph by Emilio De Torre. At Wisconsin Justice Initiative's June 25 Salon, Fernanda Jimenez-Hauch and Mario Rubio presented information on the work of Voces de la Frontera's Comité Sin Fronteras. Comité Sin Fronteras advocates for DACA recipients and helps them with renewals. In addition, through its Community Defense Network, members protect immigrants in our community from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention and train interested individuals in how to verify ICE presence and activity. Comité Sin Fronteras members Mario Rubio (left) and Fernanda Jimenez-Hauch (right) speak at WJI's Salon on June 25, 2025, at Turner Hall in Milwaukee. Slides from the presentation are available here. To sign up for Comité's verifier program, click here. Handouts at the Salon:
Note: We are crunching Supreme Court of Wisconsin decisions down to size. The rule for this is that no justice gets more than 10 paragraphs as written in the actual decision. The “upshot” and “background” sections do not count as part of the 10 paragraphs because of their summary and necessary nature. We’ve also removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading but have linked to important cases cited or information about them. Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names, which are also italicized. The Case: Kaul v. Wisconsin State Legislature  Hagedorn Majority: Justice Brian Hagedorn (18 pages) for a unanimous court. Upshot This is a constitutional challenge to a law that prohibits the Department of Justice (DOJ) from settling most civil cases unless and until it receives the approval of the Joint Finance Committee (JFC). . . . *** As this court has explained over a series of cases, the Legislature’s constitutional responsibilities consist in making the law. Enforcing the law is a task vested in the executive branch. The general principle we announced in Service Employees International Union, Local 1 v. Vos, (SEIU) remains. While the Legislature can by law empower DOJ to represent the state in litigation and prescribe the limits and ends of that power, it generally cannot give itself the power to control litigation the statutes empower DOJ to undertake. Unlike in SEIU, the Legislature has not identified any constitutional role for itself in these two categories of cases. We hold that settling these two categories of cases is within the core powers of the executive branch, and the statutory requirement to obtain JFC’s approval prior to settling these cases violates the Wisconsin Constitution’s separation of powers. We reverse the decision of the court of appeals holding otherwise. Background The Department of Justice represents the state of Wisconsin in legal matters. It is responsible for prosecuting or defending all criminal and civil cases where the state, a state agency, or a state employee is involved, or where the state or the people of Wisconsin may have an interest. This includes civil actions DOJ prosecutes to enforce state laws and those DOJ pursues at the direction of an executive agency regarding programs it administers. DOJ possesses this power by statute, having no inherent authority to prosecute cases on its own. Until 2017, DOJ could settle any civil suit it pursued without legislative approval. But in 2018, after a new Governor and Attorney General were elected, but before they assumed office, the Legislature amended the statute governing DOJ’s ability to settle cases . . . , which now provides: "Any civil action prosecuted by the department by direction of any officer, department, board, or commission, or any civil action prosecuted by the department on the initiative of the attorney general, or at the request of any individual may be compromised or discontinued with the approval of an intervenor under s. 803.09(2m) or, if there is no intervenor, by submission of a proposed plan to the joint committee on finance for the approval of the committee. The compromise or discontinuance may occur only if the joint committee on finance approves the proposed plan." Thus, DOJ can no longer settle civil cases unless and until a legislative committee approves DOJ’s settlement plan. Shortly after the statute was amended, labor unions and individual taxpayers argued the statute was facially unconstitutional. In that case, we held that this provision was not unconstitutional in all its applications. We left open, however, the possibility that individual applications of the law or categories of applications might violate the constitution. And that is the kind of challenge we have here. About a year after SEIU, Attorney General Josh Kaul, DOJ, Governor Evers, and the Secretary of the Department of Administration filed this case in Dane County Circuit Court (for ease, we will refer to the plaintiffs collectively as “DOJ”). Having lost the facial challenge in SEIU, DOJ argued that the settlement statute was unconstitutional as to two categories of civil cases. Specifically, DOJ challenged the statute’s constitutionality as applied to civil enforcement actions and actions state agencies request DOJ to pursue. Settlement of these cases, DOJ argued, constitutes core executive power into which the legislative branch cannot interfere. The circuit court agreed with DOJ and granted its motions for summary judgment as to both categories. The court of appeals reversed. It concluded that the power to settle these types of cases is a shared power and legislative sign off on settlements was not an undue burden on executive powers. DOJ then petitioned this court for review, which we granted. WJI covered the District 2 Court of Appeals decision here in December 2024. Guts The quintessential core power belonging to the executive branch is the power to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” At the time of Wisconsin’s founding, to “execute” meant to “make effectual or operative” and “to carry into effect.” We have explained that this means once the Legislature has passed a law embodying its policy choices, it is the province of the executive branch to determine what the law requires and how to faithfully apply it. Part of that faithful application includes following any instructions for executing the law the Legislature prescribes by statute, and exercising discretion when the Legislature does not, so as to carry into effect the Legislature’s policy choices. Thus, it is within the Legislature’s domain to decide what the law shall be and to confer authority and discretion on the executive branch, which then must execute it “under and in pursuance of the law.” As one of three constitutional administrative officers, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice through which he acts are members of the executive branch of government. The constitution states that the Attorney General’s powers and duties “shall be prescribed by law.” In SEIU, the Legislature argued that because the Attorney General only possessed powers prescribed by statute, the settlement statute was constitutional because the Attorney General has no inherent constitutional authority to execute the law himself. Thus, the Legislature argued that any power the Attorney General exercised was subject to legislative modification and, therefore, could not violate the separation of powers. We disagreed. We explained that the Attorney General exercises executive authority when carrying out his statutory duties. And while the Legislature could give powers to the Attorney General or take them away, that did not mean the Legislature could, consistent with the constitution, grant to itself executive power in the first instance. Said another way, just because the Legislature establishes the scope of the Attorney General’s litigation powers does not mean that it can assume the execution of those powers itself. *** The Attorney General and DOJ are tasked with executing numerous statutes detailing when and how they are to bring litigation. Civil enforcement actions, the first category DOJ raises here, are civil actions prosecuted by the Attorney General to enforce state laws. Such actions include laws enforcing environmental, consumer protection, financial regulation, and medical assistance programs. State agencies typically refer these cases to DOJ for prosecution, but DOJ may also pursue some on its own initiative. In these actions, DOJ represents the state acting as the plaintiff, and any relief—civil forfeiture, injunctive relief, recovery costs of enforcement, or restitution—is obtained on behalf of the state. In the second category of cases, the Attorney General and DOJ are statutorily tasked with prosecuting certain cases at the request of “the head of any department of the state government.” These includes pursuing breach of contract cases for contracts “in which the state is interested,” and “all actions, civil or criminal, relating to any matter connected” with any state department. Examples include civil actions to enforce contracts executive agencies enter into or to pursue compensation in tort for damages to state property. Like those in the first category, these are cases where the state acts as plaintiff and where it will not be required to pay money to a defendant in a settlement. Some of the statutes authorizing these suits give the Attorney General broader discretion about when and how to take action, while others circumscribe that discretion by providing specific guidelines about prosecution and recoveries. But in either event, it falls within the power of the Attorney General to effectuate the Legislature’s statutorily enacted policy decisions with regard to these suits. Thus, DOJ’s litigation in these categories of cases is, rather straightforwardly, the execution of laws enacted by the Legislature. We said as much in SEIU, calling litigation on behalf of the state “predominately an executive function.” The Legislature agrees that litigation is at least in part an executive power, arguing at most that the power is shared with the Legislature rather than exclusively executive. And the idea that bringing lawsuits to execute or enforce the law constitutes executive power is uncontroversial. The United States Supreme Court has said that lawsuits are “the ultimate remedy for a breach of the law,” and, as such, it is constitutionally the executive branch’s role, not the Legislature’s, to pursue that remedy so as to faithfully enforce the law. Other state high courts have likewise found the power for a government agency to bring civil suits to be quintessential executive power for similar reasons. Just as the pursuit of these claims is unequivocally an executive function, so is the settlement of them. When the Legislature gives authority to the Attorney General to pursue these claims, it necessarily confers discretion on how to pursue the claims to completion, through settlement or otherwise. As we have said, “[i]n executing the law, the executive branch must make decisions about how to enforce and effectuate the laws.” In the context of the Attorney General’s authority to pursue certain claims, this means he is given the discretion to decide how to best execute the Legislature’s statutory mandates and policy choices, including whether those ends are best served through a settlement. *** Having established that the executive has the constitutional authority to settle lawsuits in these types of cases, the key question before us is whether the Legislature also possesses this constitutional authority in at least some suits within the two categories. The Legislature offers several arguments that it does, none of which succeed. *** The court rejects the Legislature's argument that it has an institutional interest in revenue generated from settlement agreements in the two categories of cases at issue. The Legislature likewise argues that it has an institutional interest in settlements within these categories of cases because they could implicate public policy, in particular where the Attorney General could require as a term of a settlement that funds be paid to certain agencies or organizations that the Legislature may disagree with. *** Executive action within the scope of statutory authority and employing the discretion inherent in execution of the law will often have a public policy impact. It is the Legislature that has given this authority and discretion in the first place, including any limitations on how settlements are to be spent. When the Attorney General, therefore, decides where settlement proceeds are to be directed, he is acting within the scope of the authority the Legislature gave him. If the Legislature is dissatisfied with the discretion it left to the Attorney General, it may amend the laws accordingly. In fact, the Legislature has done so with respect to some of the suits within the two categories in this case, instructing that any funds recovered go into the general treasury. However, the Legislature may not step into the shoes of the executive branch or otherwise control executive decisions made within the statutory authority simply because exercising that authority has policy implications. It is the “text of the statutes” by which the Legislature announces its policy decisions and how they may be achieved. *** The Legislature may prescribe the scope of the Attorney General’s authority and discretion in the categories of civil suits challenged today. But to do so, it must pass a statute. It cannot assume for itself the power to execute a law it wrote. The challenged statute permits exactly this. The settlement approval process allows a committee of the Legislature to control how the executive exercises its lawfully given statutory authority. While that may be permissible in the realm of shared powers, it is impermissible in the realm of core powers. As the Legislature has failed to demonstrate that these types of cases implicate an institutional interest granting the Legislature a seat at the table, the powers at issue are core executive powers. Accordingly, there is no constitutional justification for requiring JFC sign-off on settlement agreements within these categories of cases. The statute as applied to these cases violates the Wisconsin Constitution’s separation of powers.  By Alexandria Staubach It is difficult to find two of the three Milwaukee Municipal Court judges on the bench doing work visible to the public. That is Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s conclusion after visiting the court several times from November 2024 through last week. Specifically in branches 1 and 3, the lights may be on but often no one is home. The reasons could include a combination of a 77% drop in case load since 2018 and the two judges continuing to hold court virtually, even post-pandemic. Cases filed in the court have declined from a peak of nearly 86,000 total filings in 2018 to less than 24,000 in 2024. WJI staff visiting Milwaukee Municipal Court found that in contrast to visits to Milwaukee County Circuit Court, there was never a line to get in, and the waiting room was generally empty. While the municipal court officially begins at 8:30 a.m., Branch 3, assigned to Presiding Judge Phil Chavez, was often locked, closed, with the lights off sometimes as early as 9:00 a.m. In Branch 1, assigned to Judge Valarie Hill, WJI staff often found the same thing: the door locked with nothing happening inside. When these judges were on the bench, they consistently appeared virtually by Zoom. WJI never observed Hill or Chavez physically present in the courthouse. Branch 2 Judge Molly Gena generally appears in person, hearing cases from the bench in her courtroom, even when defendants have elected to appear virtually. During the pandemic, the court adopted a policy that permitted virtual appearances, and it seems Hill and Chavez never came back to court. They appear virtually for everything from initial appearances to trials. Whether based on a formal policy of the court or merely the desires of Hill and Chavez, it is often only the defendant and bailiff in the courtroom, and sometimes a clerk. The judge appears on screen. Observers must attend in person. There is no public facing forum for the public to join or view hearings by Zoom or live streaming.  Presiding Judge Phil Chavez on the bench (on Zoom) on June 6, 2025. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. While virtual appearances provide a convenient means to deal with citations for individuals without reliable transportation, who struggle with childcare, or who might have to take significant time off from work to go downtown, it is unclear what benefit is conveyed to the general public for the judges to be out of the courtroom. Milwaukee County Circuit Court also permitted virtual appearances during the pandemic but has generally returned to in-person proceedings with a judge on the bench. Much about Milwaukee Municipal Court procedure changed due to the pandemic and continues that way. For example, a defendant in 2019 could walk into Milwaukee Municipal Court and expect to resolve an outstanding case, whether or not they were officially on the court’s docket. The court’s website still reflects that walk-ins are suspended and will “remain suspended until further notice.” In October of 2024, when the court’s website indicated that walk-in appearances were suspended, WJI asked the court whether it was possible to walk in and resolve a case. A court services assistant said “Milwaukee Municipal Court is not doing walk-ins for court. You can appear at the reception window and fill out any forms needed regarding your case, they will be submitted to the Judge and the Judge will correspond accordingly.” However, people have not stopped coming to the court with the expectation that they can resolve their cases. WJI spoke last week with Corina Wage, owner of CJ’s Pub. She came in to pay an old citation. “They told me ‘no,’” Wage said, adding “that I have to reopen my case on paper.” What Wage did not know is that Chavez was present in his courtroom, albeit virtually, poised to finish a docket before 10:00 a.m. The court’s current policy is that one must have an appointment to come to court. The website reflects the following method to schedule defendants: “The date of your first court appearance is written on your citation (ticket), summons or complaint. The Court conducts hearings virtually and in person. Prior to the court date, you will receive a letter with steps to register. You MUST register in advance and notify the Court if you will appear virtually or in person.” Meanwhile, the municipal court docket has shrunk. The year-end total of filed cases for 2024 was 23,698, while the total in 2018 was 85,984. The year before the pandemic, total charges filed were just under 60,000, and the court returned to approximately that number in 2022. But case numbers have dropped substantially since then.  ​Chart created by Alexandria Staubach using data from Milwaukee Municipal Court available at https://municipalcourt.milwaukee.gov/resources/reports-and-statistics. The decrease in case load is consistent with a Wisconsin Policy Forum report issued earlier this year that showed dramatic decreases in overall Milwaukee Police Department arrests for more serious matters, “proactive” policing, and citations for driving offenses.  Chart created by Alexandria Staubach using data from Milwaukee Municipal Court available at https://municipalcourt.milwaukee.gov/resources/reports-and-statistics. While the court’s docket has decreased, its judges’ pay has increased. Milwaukee’s three municipal judges were each paid $133,049.02 in 2015. They now make $153,006.62 annually. Then as now, they are among the highest paid elected city officials. Their pay is exceeded only by that for the mayor ($169,436.28) and city attorney ($169,436.02).
 Judge Valarie Hill on the bench (on Zoom) on May 9, 2025, at 9:28 a.m. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach.
 Inside the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Photograph by Gretchen Schuldt. By Heidi von Helms* and Margo Kirchner
Due to AmeriCorps funding cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency, the Milwaukee County Courthouse navigator program is gone, and its absence is already affecting courthouse staff and visitors. A recent court victory by Wisconsin and other states challenging the cuts to AmeriCorps funding may not be enough to bring it back. For the past two years, courthouse navigators walked individuals to the department or courtroom they were looking for. The courthouse complex consists of three buildings, each with at least two entrances, and it is easy for members of the public to get lost and confused. With the navigators’ help, fewer people were wandering the halls and trying to figure out on their own what they needed to do and where to go, which made the lives of visitors and courthouse staff easier. When the program’s funding through AmeriCorps grants and volunteers terminated suddenly on April 25, the program was shut down. Now, the courthouse remains as convoluted as ever. A single staff member remains at the information desk on the ground floor, but that person cannot leave to escort people to offices or courtrooms and cannot guarantee that a visitor makes it to the right place. The AmeriCorps information desk and navigator program began in 2023 through the Milwaukee Justice Center (MJC) at the courthouse. MJC staff, who provide legal assistance at the courthouse, noticed they were answering many questions unrelated to the law or courtroom procedure—like where to find parking or which floor has the paternity testing center. MJC staff also found that after they helped people understand and complete legal forms, many of those helped never went through with filing the forms, possibly due to fatigue, confusion or frustration regarding different offices in the courthouse. Someone needed to answer the public’s questions, but the MJC’s desk was intended for legal help, so the MJC launched the navigator program with AmeriCorps grant funding and personnel. The program was a vital resource for the community. Mark Guzman, the former director of the AmeriCorps program at the courthouse, spoke with Wisconsin Justice Initiative before his position terminated at the end of May. He said his AmeriCorps staff members unexpectedly lost their jobs and volunteer stipends after the DOGE cuts. Many of the navigator program’s AmeriCorps volunteers were from out of state and had moved to Milwaukee to work at the courthouse. Wisconsin recently won a preliminary injunction in a multi-state case challenging the federal government’s AmeriCorps cuts. A federal judge on June 5 found that the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not providing notice and opportunity for comment before making the changes. The judge ordered the administration to immediately reinstate grant funding and AmeriCorps personnel, if they are able and willing to return. The injunction was "to restore the AmeriCorps-funded programs in the plaintiff states to the status quo before the grants were terminated and programs closed on April 25, 2025," she wrote. Federal government attorneys told the court in a June 10 status report that they had notified grant and project sponsors in the plaintiff states "to stop any closeout activities that may have been initiated (and) resume incurring costs on applicable grants." The injunction is a preliminary one; the case continues and an appeal may be filed. But even if the trial court's injunction stands and becomes permanent, lack of time and clarity on reversing course currently weigh against the navigator program’s reinstatement. Mary Ferwerda, chief deputy clerk for Milwaukee County Circuit Court, told WJI this week that “returning back to where we were is a practical issue with lots of questions, not the least of which is future funding and the risks inherent in moving forward without a legal process entirely complete.” Because AmeriCorps volunteers were “exited from service,” they may not be allowed to return to that same term of service, Ferwerda said. Right now it is unknown what the national AmeriCorps office may allow, she said. Further, the grant year was set to end Aug. 31, with the volunteers’ last day on Aug. 15. “This is not a lot of time for people to try to make up the currently seven weeks of hours they missed in order to qualify for their education award and does not consider the work required to bring back exited members, if allowed to do so.” Guzman’s layoff as of May 30 makes the prospect or reinstating the program even more difficult. Because the AmeriCorps participants were volunteers, not employees, former navigator staff members could not receive unemployment. AmeriCorps received $400 million of funding each year and had one of the best returns-on-investment for a government agency. It provided millions of Americans with disaster relief, economic opportunities, environmental services, and education. It helped hundreds of thousands of young people begin their careers in public service. Following the budget cuts, important programs all over the country were pared back or dissolved, including Milwaukee’s own courthouse navigators and help desk program. It is unclear whether the recent court win will bring them back to life. *Heidi von Helms in a summer intern at Wisconsin Justice Initiative. By Alexandria Staubach The Wisconsin Policy Forum last week released the findings of a comprehensive look at Milwaukee’s Criminal Justice Council, a relatively unknown collaborative group of city and county officials who wield power in the Milwaukee County criminal justice system and strive to improve intergovernmental cooperation. The Criminal Justice Council is nearing its 20th anniversary, yet many in the Milwaukee area are unfamiliar with its existence or work. The forum's "In the Interest of Justice" report said that the council's long-term impact is threatened by a lack of public awareness about the council, unstable funding streams, and the council’s lofty goals when weighed against its capacity. “Many of the idea and action items that emanate from subcommittees fail to materialize because of a lack of CJC staff capacity and limited help from partner organizations,” the report said. A rash of retirements, including those of former Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm and Wisconsin State Public Defender Regional Attorney Manager Tom Reed, resulted in loss of “’key longstanding CJC leaders,’” according to unnamed sources quoted by the forum. The forum wrote that “(o)ne individual we spoke with noted that the ‘key drivers of action’ in regard to the Milwaukee CJC are the Chief Judge, the District Attorney, the Public Defender’s Office, and the Department of Corrections.” Participation by other justice system leaders, in particular the Milwaukee mayor, Milwaukee County executive, Milwaukee police chief, and Milwaukee County sheriff, “has ebbed and flowed over the years,” said the report. “(E)nsuring more consistent and active participation from these stakeholders may be a worthwhile goal for the CJC in the months ahead,” the report said. The forum recommends opening the council to business leaders and interests, developing a separate and independent nonprofit organization to continue on as the CJC, developing funding for staff from the city and county, and enhancing public communications about the council’s activities and initiatives. The CJC relies primarily on funding from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, or “JAG.” As is the case for all federal funding now, “changes in JAG funding levels or policies might eventually preclude (CJC) from accessing these funds,” the report said. Further, “that concern has served as a deterrent to further investment in staff and other resources.” The CJC currently has three staff members, including an executive director. All work out of and are employed by the Wisconsin Policy Forum through grants made to the CJC. According to the forum, “the decision to house the positions in an independent nonprofit organization and have them be employees of WPF—as opposed to one of the justice system agencies that participate in the CJC—stemmed from the Executive Committee’s sentiment that placing the positions in a department of either county or city government would convey that one of those governments had greater control over the council.” The report indicates that one of the council’s key early initiatives was to investigate how the criminal justice system could better use work-release programs. The council also oversaw the creation and implementation of risk-assessment tools used to set bail at the initial appearance in every criminal case in the county. While the CJC’s early days focused on data collection, community engagement, external communications, and jail population, its 2024 strategic plan added “new priority areas that include violence prevention, housing, mental health and trauma, and youth justice,” according to the report. The report indicates that the CJC may have grown out of a 2007 resolution of the Board of County Supervisors at the request of then-Sheriff David Clarke, to deal with a consent decree that mandated a population reduction in the county jail system. Some individuals who were around at the council’s inception, however, credit “an outgrowth of efforts already underway among justice system leaders to better understand the work of their peers and encourage greater collaboration,” the report said. The first meeting was attended by Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Chief Judge Kitty Brennan, Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn, Milwaukee County House of Correction Superintendent Ron Malone, Clarke, and Chisholm. The report cited an unnamed senior county staff member as saying “it was remarkable to have leaders of such distinct political and ideological backgrounds meet on such a frequent and productive basis.” Later additions to the council included the presiding judge of Milwaukee Municipal Court, representatives from the State Public Defender’s Office and Wisconsin Department of Corrections, the chair of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors’ Judiciary Committee, the director of the Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services, Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel, a representative from the Eastern District of Wisconsin’s U.S. Attorney’s Office, the leader of the Milwaukee Homicide Review Committee, and a citizen representative. Current CJC executive committee members: Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman Milwaukee Municipal Court Presiding Judge Phillip Chavez Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita Ball Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern (Council Vice Chair) First Judicial District (Milwaukee County Circuit Court) Chief Judge Carl Ashley (Council Chair) Milwaukee County Supervisor Willie Johnson, Jr. Milwaukee County Community Reintegration Center Superintendent Chantell Jewell Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services Director Shakita LaGrant-McClain Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel Scott Brown Milwaukee County Circuit Court Clerk Anna Hodges Wisconsin State Public Defender Regional Attorney Manager Angel Johnson Wisconsin Department of Corrections Community Corrections Regional Chief Niel Thoreson U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Wisconsin representative (Richard Frohling currently Acting U.S. Attorney) Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission and DataShare Director Constance Kostelac Community Representative Walter Lanier  By Alexandria Staubach After a loss in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals by service provider JusticePoint, Milwaukee’s municipal court diversion program seems poised to sunset, despite strong community support for the program and a two-year court battle to keep it going. JusticePoint has long facilitated the Municipal Court Alternatives Program, helping those who cannot afford to pay Milwaukee municipal tickets complete community service options and connecting defendants with housing resources and drug and alcohol treatment. JusticePoint provided such services for four decades, but Milwaukee Municipal Court notified JusticePoint in spring 2023 that it was terminating the contract under a “convenience” clause. JusticePoint fought the termination under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law. It initially won a temporary restraining order continuing services, but then lost on the merits in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. A stay from the Court of Appeals kept the court alternatives program in place during JusticePoint’s appeal. JusticePoint lost that appeal last month. The appeals court decision hinged on whether JusticePoint distributed its own services or instead provided services on behalf of the city.  White Chief Judge Maxine White authored the opinion, joined by Judges Pedro Colón and Sara Geenen.
JusticePoint argued that it was distributing services on behalf of the city. If so, the fair dealership law would have raised the city’s obligations for termination of the JusticePoint contract and required “good cause, proper notice, and an opportunity to cure,” White wrote. However, the appeals court found that the contract between JusticePoint and the city “appears to be a typical vendor-vendee relationship,” and “JusticePoint was selling and distributing its own services.” Thus, “the circuit court properly dismissed JusticePoint’s complaint and denied Justice Point’s request for an injunction,” White wrote. "As it has been since the beginning, our primary interest is to ensure that these services remain available to the residents of Milwaukee. If nothing else, our lawsuit has kept these services in place for the past two years," said Edward Gordon, chief operating officer of JusticePoint, in an email to WJI last week. The city argued that applying the fair dealership law to the JusticePoint contract would “effectively swallow public procurement law” and “would make it nearly impossible for a government entity to ever terminate a contract that it determines is no longer serving the public good,” according to the appeals court decision. The city attorney’s office represented Milwaukee Municipal Court in the lawsuit. “We applaud the Court of Appeals affirmation of the Circuit Court in their holding that no dealership relationship existed in the city’s contracting for services with JusticePoint. Such a precedent would be harmful to Milwaukee—and all local governments—and limit the ability to provide the very type of innovative, community-based programming that’s needed,” City Attorney Evan Goyke told WJI yesterday. “The city has always acknowledged the importance of programming and alternative resolutions for eligible individuals in the Municipal Court system,” Goyke said. Concerns remain about who or what will replace the alternatives program if it now sunsets. WJI board member Jim Gramling, who served as a Milwaukee Municipal Court judge for 21 years before retirement, filed a “friend of the court” brief in the JusticePoint appeal. "A significant percentage of defendants coming through the court live in poverty or struggle with addictions or mental health challenges," he told WJI this week. "Nearly 95% of the defendants proceed without an attorney.” Gramling said he was unaware of any provider ready to step in to replace JusticePoint. “Without the services provided by MCAP, those defendants are destined to be ground up in the system,” he said. When the city first attempted to terminate the JusticePoint contract in 2023, WJI asked then-chief court administrator Sheldyn Himle whether services would continue with a different provider. At the time, Himle responded that “Milwaukee Municipal Court’s intervention/alternatives program will continue, just not with the current vendor.” WJI reached out to current Milwaukee Municipal Court chief administrator Tea Norfolk following the court of appeals decision. She declined to comment on when or whether services would resume with another provider.  Entrance to the Wisconsin Senate in the Wisconsin State Capitol. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach The Wisconsin Senate recently voted along party lines to codify several types of specialty courts, including a controversial business court. The bill, having previously passed in the Assembly along party lines, now heads to Gov. Tony Evers for signature or veto. Treatment courts, such as drug courts and mental health courts, have long held bipartisan support. The creation of special civil courts to deal with large business and commercial case has been more controversial. Passage of the bill puts the Legislature’s stamp of approval on them. At the bill’s May 15 reading in the full Senate, Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison), criticized the bill as creating a “rocket docket for guys like Elon Musk,” without providing funding for any of the specialty courts, especially the treatment courts. “We don’t need a system where the powerful, the wealthy, the best connected among us get to have their own court system, their own handpicked judges, and then the rest of us can sit around and wait for our day in court to resolve really important critical matters,” said Roys. To date, specialty courts have generally been created by the courts themselves. For instance, Milwaukee County Circuit Court last summer started a specialty court for cases in which a defendant’s competency is at issue. Specific judges have been assigned to a specific type of case, sometimes with training in that legal area. AB 73 would recognize in statute the following specialty courts: adult drug treatment court, juvenile drug treatment court, operating-while-intoxicated treatment court, mental health treatment court, family dependency treatment court, veterans’ treatment court, hybrid treatment court, and tribal healing-to-wellness court. Treatment courts have long been used throughout the state. The bill also statutorily recognizes a specialized docket for commercial cases, the subject of Roys’ concern. A special court for business interests is relatively newer and will not immediately affect every county in Wisconsin. We don’t need a system where the powerful, the wealthy, the best connected among us get to have their own court system, their own handpicked judges, and then the rest of us can sit around and wait for our day in court to resolve really important critical matters. Wisconsin Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) Wisconsin’s commercial courts were born out of a 2017 Supreme Court rule that characterized the specialty docket as a “pilot project.” That pilot project lasted more than seven years in only certain trial courts in the state.
Last year, the Supreme Court evaluated the pilot project and declined to extend it for another two years. The court divided along ideological lines. Referencing the same courts that were part of the pilot project, the bill provides procedures for establishing commercial courts in the following judicial districts and their corresponding counties: the second district (Kenosha, Racine, Walworth), the third district (Dodge, Jefferson, Ozaukee, Washington, Waukesha), the fifth district (Columbia, Dane, Green, Lafayette, Rock, Sauk), the eighth district (Brown, Door, Kewaunee, Marinette, Oconto, Outagamie, Waupaca), and the tenth district (Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Chippewa, Douglas, Dunn, Eau Claire, Iron, Polk, Rusk, St. Croix, Sawyer, Washburn). Judges would be assigned to those counties with prior or existing commercial courts by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, “after considering the recommendation of the chief judge of the encompassing judicial administrative district,” according to the bill. The bill can be retroactively applied to any county that chooses to develop a commercial court. The first district, composed solely of Milwaukee County Circuit Court, which is the busiest judicial district, was not part of the pilot program and does not currently have a commercial court. Roys at the May 15 floor session strongly supported recognition of treatment and diversion courts, saying that they were “win-win.” She suggested that the Legislature dedicate state funds to run them. “Without an appropriation, without money, programs can’t run,” she said. Recognition and funding of the treatment courts is “one step that we can take to address the shameful fact that Wisconsin incarcerates two to three times more people than our neighboring state of Minnesota, and I refuse to believe that Wisconsinites are two to three times worse than Minnesotans,” Roys said. But she proposed that the Legislature delete the provision recognizing business courts. The commercial courts do “nothing to help everyday Wisconsinites,” she said. Sen. André Jacque (R-New Franken) disagreed with Roys, saying the bill “was not about creating a rocket docket for anything” and that “these are all specialty courts that have been in operation in Wisconsin, and very successfully I might add.” Jacque sponsored the bill in the Senate, along with Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), Sen. Dan Feyen (R-Fond du Lac), and Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater). In written testimony filed with the bill, Jacque said the commercial courts would “aid the effective resolution of commercial disputes and help provide more certainty for our economy.” Before declining to extend the pilot project last year, the Supreme Court held a public hearing in September 2024 at which those involved in commercial litigation overwhelmingly supported continuing the business court. Retired Judge Richard G. Ness was a rare voice against the project. Ness said at the September hearing that the program is the “creation of a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.” He said that in his 13 years on the bench, he never encountered an inability to effectively deal with civil business cases. Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley asked how business court differed from juvenile court, sexual assault court, probate court, criminal courts, and other civil courts. She told Ness that he was holding the commercial courts to a “very different standard” than the other specialty courts. Ness, who testified that he also spent 26 years representing big business, previously said in an op-ed for Wisconsin Watch that the project “has granted large commercial interests outsized influence over our court system’s handling of their cases, exactly as intended.” |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed