Court considers who controls settlement money in Wisconsin government dispute.
A long-running political fight in Wisconsin reached the state’s highest court as justices heard arguments about who has control over money won through large legal settlements involving multiple states. The disagreement centers on whether the state attorney general or lawmakers should decide how settlement funds are handled once they reach Wisconsin.
The dispute dates back several years and began during a tense political transition in 2018. At that time, Republican lawmakers passed a series of laws shortly before newly elected Democratic officials took office. These measures, often called “lame duck” laws, limited certain powers of incoming leaders, including Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul and Governor Tony Evers. One part of the law required money from multi-state legal settlements to be placed into Wisconsin’s general fund, where legislators would have greater control over how it is spent.
The conflict resurfaced in 2021 when Republican lawmakers filed a lawsuit claiming Kaul’s office was not following the law. Legislators argued that settlement money was being directed into accounts managed by the Department of Justice instead of being deposited fully into the general fund. According to lawmakers, this allowed the attorney general too much freedom over public funds.
A Polk County judge initially ruled in favor of the attorney general, agreeing that the Department of Justice acted within its authority. However, the decision was later overturned by the state’s 2nd District Court of Appeals in 2024. That ruling supported the Legislature’s position, sending the case toward the Wisconsin Supreme Court after Kaul requested further review.
During oral arguments, justices from both ideological sides questioned attorneys representing each party. Some members of the court appeared skeptical of how both sides framed their legal interpretations, with one justice suggesting the disagreement had become unnecessarily complicated.
Assistant Attorney General Hannah Jurss told the court that the Department of Justice has followed the law by placing settlement funds into the state treasury while directing money toward specific programs connected to legal work. She argued that the Legislature’s interpretation would prevent the attorney general from using settlement funds even to cover legal costs tied to the cases that produced the money in the first place. According to her argument, some funds are now sitting unused because spending authority remains unclear.
Several justices pushed back on that explanation. Questions from the bench suggested concern that the attorney general’s office might be reading the law too broadly. One justice asked whether any portion of settlement money would ever reach the general fund under the department’s interpretation.
Representing the Legislature, attorney Misha Tseytlin argued that state law clearly requires settlement money to flow into the general fund unless lawmakers approve another use. He said allowing the attorney general to redirect funds creates what he described as an independent spending account beyond legislative oversight. Tseytlin maintained that elected lawmakers, not executive officials, should control how public money is spent.
The legal fight also reflects broader tensions over separation of powers in Wisconsin government. The 2018 legislation changed several aspects of how legal authority is shared between the Legislature and the attorney general’s office. Lawmakers also gained expanded ability to hire private attorneys to represent legislative interests, a shift that continues to shape legal battles between the branches of government.
The Supreme Court has already ruled on another part of the same law in a previous case, unanimously deciding that the attorney general retains authority to settle certain lawsuits without legislative approval. That earlier decision signaled limits on how far lawmakers could restrict executive powers, though it did not resolve questions about settlement money itself.
It remains uncertain how the court will rule in this latest dispute. The decision could affect how millions of dollars from nationwide legal agreements are handled in Wisconsin moving forward. Beyond the money involved, the outcome may help define the balance of power between state officials and lawmakers for years to come, influencing how future attorneys general negotiate settlements and how legislators oversee state finances.
Sources:
Wisconsin Supreme Court hears arguments in political struggle over state settlement funds
Wisconsin Supreme Court case flips script on which judges strictly interpret law
Join the conversation!