Brian Dake

In a unanimous decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has sided with Wisconsin’s attorney general in a dispute about the power to settle some lawsuits.

The Department of Justice argued that the attorney general should have control over specific types of cases. That includes cases that have to do with executive authority, such as those enforcing environmental and consumer protection laws, the DOJ argued. The AG’s office also argued it applies to cases brought at the request of agencies for programs those agencies are tasked by law with administering.

Attorneys for Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled Legislature, however, argued that lawmakers have an “institutional interest” in overseeing settlements — especially when those settlements result in money paid to the state.

In a decision written by Justice Brian Hagedorn, justices concluded that while the Legislature can have power over the attorney general’s actions in some cases, that doesn’t apply to every situation.

Specifically, justices said that under state laws, the attorney general has authority over civil enforcement actions as well as cases directed by state agencies.

“The settlement approval process allows a committee of the Legislature to control how the executive exercises its lawfully given statutory authority,” the decision states. “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.”

Consumers spending pulled back sharply in May, the Commerce Department reported Tuesday. Retail sales declined 0.9%, according to numbers adjusted for seasonality but not inflation. Excluding autos, sales fell 0.3%.

Building materials and garden stores saw sales fall 2.7%, while sliding energy prices pushed gasoline station receipts down 2%. Motor vehicles and parts retailers were off 3.5%, while bars and restaurants saw sales decline 0.9%.

On the plus side, miscellaneous retailers gained 2.9%, while online sales rose 0.9% and furniture stores increased sales by 1.2%.

The pullback in retail sales came despite surveys showing that consumer sentiment actually improved in May, though compared with levels that had been falling through the year.

Wisconsin’s tourism industry experienced its third-straight year of record-setting economic impact in 2024 and set a new all-time high for the number of visits to the Badger State, Gov. Tony Evers announced Tuesday.

The state’s tourism industry generated $25.8 billion in total economic impact last year, beating the record set in 2023 of $25 billion, according to data from the state Department of Tourism.

On top of monetary impact, there were also a record 114.4 million visits to Wisconsin in 2024, beating the previous record of 113.2 million visits set in 2019, the department said.

“That number is built off of repeat visitors,” said Craig Trost, communications director for the Department of Tourism. “They are the backbone of our tourism economy.”

The agency, more commonly known as Travel Wisconsin, counts a visit as any trip a person takes that’s more than 50 miles from home, meaning the 114.4 million number includes Wisconsinites traveling between communities.

The visitor economy also generated $1.7 billion in state and local taxes, offsetting taxes for residents by $678 per household, according to a report from the tourism department.

While most counties did see their economic impact from tourism increase last year, several saw decreases, according to state data. Counties with declines in tourism economic impact include Ashland, Clark, Forest, Grant, Iowa, Iron, Juneau, Lafayette, Monroe, Taylor and Trempealeau.

President Trump on Thursday signed legislation that terminates the state of California’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate.

The president signed a law repealing a waiver the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted California to enforce its own emissions standard that would have required the minimum percentage of zero-emission cars to rise from 35% for the 2026 model year to 100% in 2035. Eleven other states signed on to California’s EV Mandate.

A leading auto industry trade group that represents Detroit’s Big Three of Ford, GM and Stellantis, along with numerous other leading automakers, praised the move to repeal the California EV standard.

“Everyone agreed these EV sales mandates were never achievable and wildly unrealistic,” John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said in a statement. “Worse than unachievable – these EV mandates were going to be harmful. Harmful to auto affordability, to consumer choice, to industry competitiveness and to economic activity.”

The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released its advance estimate for first quarter gross domestic product (GDP), which found the U.S. economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.3% in the first quarter, which runs from January through March.

The first quarter’s 0.3% contraction was slower than the 2.4% GDP growth recorded in the fourth quarter. The quarterly contraction was the first since the first quarter of 2022. The decline in GDP was attributed primarily to an increase in imports, which count as a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, as well as a decrease in government spending. Those shifts were partially offset by increases in investment, consumer spending and exports.

The 41% surge in imports was driven by consumer goods, primarily pharmaceutical goods, medicines and vitamins; and by capital goods like computers and parts.

Consumer spending rose 1.8% with gains for both services (+2.4%) and goods (+0.5%), as increases in spending on services were widespread and led by healthcare, housing and utilities. Within spending on goods, a 2.7% increase in nondurable goods was partly offset by a 3.4% decrease in durable goods.

Business investment rose 21.9% in the first quarter after it posted a 5.6% decline in the fourth quarter. Nonresidential investment was up 9.8% in the quarter, led by a 22.5% increase in equipment spending.

Disposable personal income was 2.7% in the first quarter, up from 1.9% in the fourth quarter.

Personal saving as a percentage of personal income was 4% in the first quarter, up from 3.7% in the fourth quarter – though it’s down from 5.4% in the first quarter of 2024.

Government spending was down 1.4% in the first quarter led by a 5.1% drop in federal government expenditures. Federal spending on national defense activities was down 8%, while nondefense spending declined just 1%. State and local government spending rose by 0.8%, the slowest growth since the second quarter of 2022.

On April 23, 2025, the White House issued an Executive Order (“EO”) entitled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” which aims to “eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.”

First recognized under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) by the U.S. Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), disparate impact liability provides that a policy or practice that is facially neutral and applied without discriminatory intent may nevertheless give rise to a claim of discrimination if it has an adverse effect on a protected class, such as a particular race or gender.  Disparate impact liability has also been recognized under fair housing laws and in other contexts.

The EO characterizes disparate impact liability as creating “a near insurmountable presumption of unlawful discrimination . . . where there are any differences in outcomes in certain circumstances among different races, sexes, or similar groups, even if there is no facially discriminatory policy or practice or discriminatory intent involved, and even if everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed.”  The EO further states that disparate impact liability “all but requires individuals and businesses to consider race and engage in racial balancing to avoid potentially crippling legal liability” and “is wholly inconsistent with the Constitution.”

To that end, the EO, among other things:

• directs all executive departments and agencies to “deprioritize enforcement of all statutes and regulations to the extent they include disparate-impact liability,” including but not limited to Title VII;
• orders the Attorney General, within 30 days of the EO, to report to the President “(i) all existing regulations, guidance, rules, or orders that impose disparate-impact liability or similar requirements, and detail agency steps for their amendment or repeal, as appropriate under applicable law; and (ii) other laws or decisions, including at the State level, that impose disparate-impact liability and any appropriate measures to address any constitutional or other legal infirmities”;
• orders the Attorney General and the Chair of the EEOC, within 45 days, to “assess all pending investigations, civil suits, or positions taken in ongoing matters under every Federal civil rights law within their respective jurisdictions . . . that rely on a theory of disparate-impact liability, and [] take appropriate action” consistent with the EO;
• orders all agencies, within 90 days, to “evaluate existing consent judgments and permanent injunctions that rely on theories of disparate-impact liability and take appropriate action” consistent with the EO;
• orders the Attorney General, in coordination with other agencies, to “determine whether any Federal authorities preempt State laws, regulations, policies, or practices that impose disparate-impact liability based on a federally protected characteristic such as race, sex, or age, or whether such laws, regulations, policies, or practices have constitutional infirmities that warrant Federal action, and [] take appropriate measures” consistent with the EO; and
• orders the Attorney General to initiate action to repeal or amend regulations contemplating disparate impact liability under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race, color, and national origin discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.

The EO also orders the Attorney General and the Chair of the EEOC to “jointly formulate and issue guidance or technical assistance to employers regarding appropriate methods to promote equal access to employment regardless of whether an applicant has a college education, where appropriate.”

This EO is the latest evidence of shifting enforcement priorities by the federal agencies tasked with enforcing civil rights laws, including the EEOC.  The ultimate scope of the EO’s impact remains to be seen, particularly as it relates to the potential for preemption of disparate impact liability under state or local anti-discrimination laws.  Congress has the authority to amend any federal statutes to specifically address a disparate impact theory of liability, and the courts will continue to have the ultimate say on whether and to what extent such a theory is cognizable under particular statutes.

The Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC have imposed a total of $250 million in civil penalties on Discover Financial Services for overcharging merchants on interchange fees and failing to tell them, the agencies said in separate consent orders.

The Fed issued its consent order, which included a $100 million civil penalty, on Friday. The FDIC said in a separate consent order that Discover bank — which is owned by Discover Financial Services — agreed on Tuesday to pay a $150 million civil penalty.

Within 60 days Discover is required to submit a plan to better oversee its interchange fee practices, the Fed order said. The consent order requirements were imposed by the Fed as a condition to its approval of Capital One’s $35 billion acquisition of Discover.

Over the course of nearly two decades Discover charged merchants commercial interchange fees for cards that were used for ordinary consumer spending, the order said. Commercial interchange fees are higher than consumer fees, according to the order.

The Riverwoods, Illinois-based bank and credit card issuer began overcharging merchants in 2007 and the practice continued through 2023, the Fed said.

Discover classified about five million consumer credit cards as commercial credit cards at the end of 2022 and 98% of those cards were misclassified, the Fed said in the filing.

The Fed’s order doesn’t say how much merchants were overcharged. The FDIC order requires Discover to make restitution to merchants and merchant acquirers of at least $1.23 billion. The initial FDIC order was disclosed in July 2023.

“For approximately 17 years, the Bank misclassified millions of consumer credit cards as commercial, resulting in higher interchange fees for transactions processed on the Discover network,” the FDIC said in Friday press release.

In July, Discover agreed to pay $1.2 billion to settle a class action lawsuit over card misclassification.

“Discover has since terminated these practices and is repaying those fees to affected customers,” the Fed said.

About 3.6 million babies were born in the US in 2024, according to a new report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The fertility rate last year – 54.6 births for every 1,000 women of reproductive age – increased less than 1% from the record low in 2023, hovering well below rates from years earlier.

The US fertility rate has been trending down for decades, with a particularly steep dip after the Great Recession of 2008. An uptick in 2021 spurred theories about a Covid-19 “baby bump,” but the rate quickly returned to its more consistent downward pattern.

Experts say that year-to-year movement in the fertility rate tends to be incremental and that a single year of change – such as this year’s slight increase – does not indicate a shift in the long-term trend.

But the latest provisional data, published Wednesday by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, also shows that births continue to shift to older mothers. The fertility rate was highest among women in their early 30s in 2024, with more than 95 births for every 1,000 women ages 30 to 34.

Wisconsin Republicans are reviving bills that would make wide-ranging changes to unemployment benefits and prevent local communities from establishing guaranteed income programs.

Both plans cleared a state Assembly committee on party line votes last week and are scheduled for votes by the full Assembly on Tuesday.

The unemployment benefits changes would rename Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance program “reemployment assistance” and add requirements for eligibility. Under the proposal, a person would have to make direct contact with potential employers, expanding the current requirements that a person search for work every week that they collect unemployment insurance.

It would also require a person to more regularly check in with the Department of Workforce Development and require them to take part in employment workshops or trainings.

The proposal to ban guaranteed income programs would bar communities from handing out direct and no-strings-attached cash payments to residents. Guaranteed income programs are generally backed by progressive groups and do not require a person to meet requirements, such as looking for or holding employment.

During a debate in the Assembly Committee on Public Benefit Reform, Rep. Dan Knodl, R-Germantown, argued that both proposals would “really go to protecting the integrity of these systems, and that’s important if we want them to be sustainable going into the future.”

Both bills are supported by Wisconsin Independent Businesses and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, as well as the conservative lobbying group FGA Action.

Should the bills pass the full Assembly on Tuesday, they would also need to pass the Senate and be signed by Gov. Tony Evers to become law.