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.”