$400K in expenses

The WMC litigation center ("litigation center") is dedicated to lessening the burdens of government through litigation and educating the public about economic freedom and related issues through communications and outreach. The litigation center's core mission is to represent clients in legal actions to foster and protect the free enterprise system. The litigation center defends the business community and individuals from government entities that ACT beyond their authority by commencing lawsuits, filing amicus briefs, and assisting outside counsel in select cases. The litigation center is committed to providing high-quality legal services. As a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit, public-interest law firm, the litigation center does not collect fees from its clients for its services. In calendar year 2024, the litigation center represented clients in a total of 13 legal matters. The matters fall into seven main categories: administrative law, environmental law, separation of powers, economic liberty, property rights, government transparency, and taxation. Lemieux v. Evers (wisconsin supreme court, case number 2024ap729-oa)in 2024, the litigation center filed this original action in the wisconsin supreme court on behalf of two taxpayers. This lawsuit asks the supreme court to strike down gov. Tony evers' partial veto that allows school districts to increase their property taxes without voter approval for 400 years. This lawsuit seeks to benefit the public generally by protecting taxpayers from 400 years of unlawful property-tax increases. This lawsuit also seeks to benefit the public generally by protecting the wisconsin constitution's separation of powersspecifically, by preventing the governor from exercising lawmaking power that rests exclusively in the wisconsin legislature. This lawsuit seeks to benefit the public generally by obtaining a judicial precedent that sets clearer limits on the governor's partial-veto authority. The litigation center did not seek or obtain any fees in this matter. Wisconsin manufacturers and commerce, INC. V. Village of pewaukee(wisconsin court of appeals, case number 2023ap690; waukesha county circuit court, case number 2022cv515)the litigation center is representing a not-for-profit business trade association in this matter. In march 2024, the wisconsin court of appeals issued a written opinion which concluded that the village of pewaukee's so-called transportation user fee is an "impermissible tax." subsequently, the litigation center filed a response brief opposing pewaukee's petition for review in the wisconsin supreme court. The wisconsin supreme court denied the petition for review and awarded $50 in costs to the litigation center, though the litigation center did not request costs from the wisconsin supreme court. When the case got remanded to the circuit court after the wisconsin supreme court denied review, the litigation center filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion for around $550 in costs to reimburse the litigation center for the expenses that it incurred in litigating this case. The circuit court awarded the litigation center around $550 in costs. The circuit court also granted the litigation center's motion for summary judgment, declaring the transportation user fee to be unlawful and issuing a permanent injunction against its enforcement. In november 2024, the litigation center filed a motion to hold pewaukee in contempt because pewaukee continued imposing this unlawful tax on all property owners village-wide after the wisconsin court of appeals struck it down. This lawsuit benefits the public generally by preventing local governments from illegally creating new taxes in circumvention of legal limits on tax increases. This litigation affects virtually all property owners in the village of pewaukee. It also affects broad public interests involving the power of local governments to adopt new fees and taxes. Several local governments in wisconsin have adopted a transportation fee similar to the one being challenged in this matter, and several other local governments in wisconsin were considering adopting such a fee. This litigation set a judicial precedent declaring that this type of fee is illegal in order to prevent other communities from adopting or enforcing a similar fee. The litigation center did not seek or obtain any fees in this underlying matter. In the related contempt proceeding, the litigation center sought but did not receive any court-awarded attorney fees. Case explanation continued in schedule o.