Wisconsin Taxpayers Accuse Legislature of Wasting Funds on Private Attorneys

Why It Matters

If the court blocks the Legislature’s hiring practice, Wisconsin could save millions and restore constitutional checks on legislative overreach, reshaping state‑level governance and budgeting.

Key Takeaways

• Legislature spent $26M on private attorneys
• Lame‑duck laws let legislators bypass the Attorney General
• Plaintiffs claim violation of public‑purpose doctrine
• Injunction sought to halt illegal spending

Pulse Analysis

The 2018 Wisconsin lame‑duck session, held after the election of a Democratic governor and attorney general, introduced a suite of statutes that expanded legislative power at the expense of the executive branch. By granting the Legislature the right to hire private counsel to intervene in lawsuits, the package effectively created a parallel legal team funded by taxpayers. This move raised immediate red flags among constitutional scholars, who warned that it undermines the separation of powers by allowing legislators to duplicate the work of the Department of Justice without a clear public benefit.

Beyond the constitutional argument, the financial implications are stark. The plaintiffs cite $26 million in fees and expenses, including a $680,000 budget for former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman’s election‑investigation effort and over $2 million in ancillary costs. Such spending occurs despite the existence of a state‑funded solicitor‑general office that historically handled similar matters at no extra cost to taxpayers. The lawsuit therefore frames the issue as not only a legal overreach but also a fiscal irresponsibility that burdens Wisconsin’s budget and taxpayers.

If the Dane County Circuit Court grants the requested injunction, the Legislature could lose a powerful tool for partisan litigation, forcing it to rely on the Attorney General’s office for representation. This outcome would reinforce traditional checks and balances, potentially prompting legislative leaders to revisit other lame‑duck statutes that have already been struck down. Moreover, the case may set a precedent for other states grappling with similar attempts to sidestep constitutional limits through private‑lawyer hiring schemes, highlighting the broader national relevance of Wisconsin’s internal power struggle.