Case Title: Wis. Prosperity Network v. Myse

Citation: 2012 WI 27

Docket Number: 2010AP001937-OA

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2012-03-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
2012 WI 27 

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP1937-OA 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
Wisconsin Prosperity Network, The MacIver 
Institute for Public Policy, Inc., Americans for 
Prosperity, Reverend David King, Concerned 
Citizens of Iowa County, Inc., Daniel O. Curran, 
Oriannah Paul, The Sheboygan Liberty Coalition, 
Kimberly J. Simac and Northwoods Patriot Group,  
Inc., 
          Petitioners, 
     v. 
Gordon Myse, Chair of the Wisconsin Government  
Accountability Board, Thomas Barland it’s Vice-
Chair; each of its other members, Michael 
Brennan, Thomas Cane, Gerald C. Nichol, David G. 
Deininger and Kevin Kennedy its Director & 
General Counsel; each only in his official  
capacity, 
          Respondents, 
Mary Bell and Wisconsin Education Association 
Council, 
          Intervenors-Respondents. 
 

 
 
ORIGINAL ACTION 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 19, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
September 6, 2011 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
DANE   
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J. concurs (Opinion filed).    
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: PROSSER, J. withdraws.    
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the petitioners there were briefs filed by James R. 
Troupis, Sarah E. Troupis, Christ T. Troupis and Troupis Law 
Office LLC, Middleton, Richard M. Esenberg and Wisconsin 
Institute for Law & Liberty, Milwaukee, and Michael D. Dean and 
 
 
2
First Freedoms Foundation, Inc., Waukesha, and oral argument by 
Richard M. Esenberg. 
For the respondents the cause was argued by Thomas C. 
Bellavia, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was 
J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general. 
For the intervenors-respondents there was a brief filed by 
Robert H. Friebert, Matthew W. O’Neill, Jeremy P. Levinson and  
Friebert, Finerty & St. John, S.C., Milwaukee, and Kurt Kobelt 
and Wisconsin Education Association Counsel, Madison, and oral 
argument by Matthew W. O’Neill. 
Amicus curiae briefs were filed on behalf of the Center for 
Media and Democracy by Ben Manski of Liberty Tree Foundation, 
Madison, The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, by 
J. Adam Skaggs, Mark Ladov, and Mimi Marziani of the Brennan 
Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, New York, and Edwin J. 
Hughes and Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, Madison, the Center for 
Competitive Politics by Mitchell R. Olson and Axley Brynelson, 
LLP, Madison, and the Institute for Justice by Lee U. McGrath, 
Anthony B. Sanders, and Jason A. Adkins of the Institute for 
Justice Minnesota Chapter, Minneapolis. 
 
 
2012 WI 27
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2010AP1937-OA 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Wisconsin Prosperity Network, The MacIver 
Institute for Public Policy, Inc., Americans 
for Prosperity, Reverend David King, Concerned 
Citizens of Iowa County, Inc., Daniel O. 
Curran, Oriannah Paul, The Sheboygan Liberty 
Coalition, Kimberly J. Simac and Northwoods 
Patriot Group, Inc., 
 
          Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
Gordon Myse, Chair of the Wisconsin Government 
Accountability Board, Thomas Barland, its Vice-
Chair; each of its other members, Michael 
Brennan, Thomas Cane, Gerald C. Nichol, David 
G. Deininger and Kevin Kennedy its Director & 
General Counsel; each only in his official 
capacity, 
 
          Respondents, 
 
Mary Bell and Wisconsin Education Association 
Council, 
 
          Intervenors-Respondents. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 19, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM.     
¶1 
On August 9, 2010, a petition for an original action 
was filed by Wisconsin Prosperity Network, Inc., The MacIver 
Institute for Public Policy, Inc., Americans for Prosperity, 
No. 
2010AP1937-OA   

2 
 
Reverend David King, Concerned Citizens of Iowa County, Inc., 
Daniel 
O. 
Curran, 
Oriannah 
Paul, 
The 
Sheboygan 
Liberty 
Coalition, Kimberly J. Simac, and Northwoods Patriot Group, Inc.  
A response was filed by Gordon Myse, Thomas Barland, Michael 
Brennan, Thomas Cane, Gerald C. Nichol, David Deininger, and 
Kevin Kennedy, each in his respective official capacity as an 
officer, member, counsel or employee of the Wisconsin Government 
Accountability Board (GAB).  On August 13, 2010, this court 
enjoined the GAB from enforcing the amendments to Wis. Admin. 
Code § GAB 1.28 published on July 31, 2010, pending further 
order of this court.    
¶2 
On 
November 
30, 
2010, 
after 
considering 
the 
petitioners' and respondents' briefs regarding whether the 
petition warranted the exercise of this court's original 
jurisdiction, this court granted leave to commence the original 
action and assumed jurisdiction over the action.  On the same 
day, we granted a motion by Mary Bell and the Wisconsin 
Education Association Council to intervene.  
¶3 
The court received briefs on the merits from the 
parties and held oral argument on September 6, 2011.  After 
considering 
the 
parties' 
briefs 
and 
arguments, 
the 
six 
participating justices unanimously agree that the August 13, 
2010 order enjoining the respondents from enforcing the July 31, 
2010 amendments to Wis. Admin. Code § GAB 1.28 should be 
vacated.  Nevertheless, the court is equally divided on the 
rationale.  Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Justice Ann 
Walsh Bradley, and Justice N. Patrick Crooks would conclude that 
No. 
2010AP1937-OA   

3 
 
the GAB had authority under Wis. Stat. §§ 5.05(1)(f) and 227.11 
to promulgate the July 31, 2010 amendments to Wis. Admin. Code 
§ GAB 1.28.  They would conclude that the amendments are not 
facially invalid under the First Amendment of the United States 
Constitution 
or 
Article 
I, 
Section 
3 
of 
the 
Wisconsin 
Constitution. 
 
Justice Patience Drake Roggensack, Justice 
Annette Kingsland Ziegler, and Justice Michael J. Gableman would 
dismiss the action on the ground that an original action was 
improvidently granted.     
¶4 
When this court splits evenly, the court of appeals' 
decision is affirmed if the case is before this court on a 
petition for review, or the cause is remanded to the court of 
appeals for further proceedings if it is before this court on a 
bypass or certification.  State v. Elam, 195 Wis. 2d 683, 684-
85, 538 N.W.2d 249 (1995).  This case, however, is not before 
the court on a petition for review, bypass, or certification but 
rather as an original action pursuant to a petition for leave to 
commence an original action seeking declaratory relief and a 
request 
for 
temporary 
injunctive 
relief 
enjoining 
the 
enforcement of the amendments to Wis. Admin. Code § GAB 1.28. 
¶5 
Accordingly, the original action pending before this 
court is dismissed and the August 13, 2010 order enjoining the 
respondents from enforcing the July 31, 2010 amendments to Wis. 
Admin. Code § GAB 1.28 is vacated. 
¶6 
Justice 
DAVID 
T. 
PROSSER, 
JR. 
withdrew 
from 
participation. 
 
No.  2010AP1937-OA.ssa 
 
1 

¶7 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (concurring).  On August 
9, 2010, about one and one-half years ago, the petitioners asked 
the court to take jurisdiction of an original action challenging 
rules adopted by the Government Accountability Board.   
¶8 
Four days later, even before the court accepted the 
original action, Justices Prosser, Roggensack, Ziegler, and 
Gableman voted to enjoin the Government Accountability Board 
from enforcing the rules the petitioners were challenging.  
(Justices Bradley, Crooks, and I dissented.)  The court accepted 
the original action on November 30, 2010, leaving the injunction 
in place.    
¶9 
Justices 
Roggensack, 
Ziegler, 
and 
Gableman 
now 
conclude, without any explanation, that the original action was 
improvidently granted.  This vote for dismissal is very 
surprising given that in the order granting the temporary 
injunction, the justices determined that the petitioners had met 
their burden to show, among other matters, "a likelihood of 
success on the merits."            
¶10 Because the three justices do not explain their vote 
for dismissal, we are left to wonder why they now fail to 
address the merits of the petition. 
 
 
No.  2010AP1937-OA.ssa 
 
 
 

 
