Opinion ID: 1965617
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Great Public Concern Doctrine

Text: ¶ 95. The general rule is that state agencies, public officers, and municipalities have no standing to challenge the constitutionality of statutes. Fulton Foundation v. Department of Taxation, 13 Wis. 2d 1, 11, 108 N.W.2d 312 (1961). One exception to this rule is that these governmental entities may challenge constitutionality of a statute when the issue is of great public concern. In Fulton Foundation we described great public concern as a matter of great public interest. Fulton Foundation, 13 Wis. 2d at 13. ¶ 96. As was made clear in The Attorney General v. The City of Eau Claire, 37 Wis. 400 (1875), protecting Wisconsin rivers, which is exactly what this case is about, is a matter of great public interest to the state as a whole. This case involves a navigable stream and the forever free and public trust doctrines, which I discuss in greater detail below. It easily falls within our prior cases determining what constitutes great public concern. ¶ 97. The majority opinion holds that the great public concern doctrine does not apply in this case for two reasons. First, it states that it is not the attorney general's duty to challenge the constitutionality of Wis. Stat. § 30.056. Majority op. at ¶ 40. The question is not duty in this case but authority. I previously have discussed the Attorney General's authority to challenge the constitutionality of a statute when the Attorney General has express statutory authority to initiate an action. ¶ 98. Second, the majority opinion says that the great public concern doctrine does not apply to suits between two creatures of the state, majority op. ¶ 41, and the Attorney General and Oak Creek are creatures of the state. Several cases have stated that the great public concern exception applies only between a state agency or municipality and a private litigant, not between two creatures of the state. [18] ¶ 99. These cases fail to explain, however, how this judicially created limitation relates to the question whether an issue is of great public concern. Furthermore, the cases fail to give any compelling reason for excluding disputes between arms of the government from the great public concern doctrine. ¶ 100. Indeed this court has ignored its own created bar and allowed suits between arms of the government. This court has, for example, allowed a municipality to challenge the constitutionality of a collective bargaining statute in its suit against a state agency. See Unified S.D. No. 1 of Racine Cty. v. WERC, 81 Wis. 2d 89, 259 N.W.2d 724 (1977). The cases are thus inconsistent about the application of the rule. ¶ 101. Furthermore, several of this court's holdings, including Fulton Foundation, the case that first recognized the great public concern exception, have suggested that the great public concern doctrine is most needed when private citizens are not apt to bring an action. [19] In this case the Attorney General plays a critical role because no individual litigant is likely to challenge Oak Creek's conduct or § 30.056. ¶ 102. As is apparent from our own cases, the judicially created rule excluding suits between arms of government from the great public concern doctrine has no logical foundation and is not consistently applied. A doctrine that has been judicially created should be overturned when the rationale for the doctrine is not evident and the application of the doctrine has not been coherent or consistent. [20] I would overturn the judicially created rule excluding suits between arms of government from the great public concern doctrine. I would allow the present suit to continue because it falls within the great public concern doctrine.