Great Lakes Legal Foundation Inc

“During 2021 the bylaws and articles of incorporation were amended to reflect the name change of the organization from great lakes legal foundation to wmc litigation center, inc. The bylaws were also amended to indicate that wisconsin manufacturers and commerce, inc. Is able to nominate all directors of the organization and that any amendments to the governing documents must be approved by wisconsin manufacturers and commerce, inc.”

“The directors of the corporation shall be appointed by wisconsin manufacturers and commerce, inc.”

“The prepared form 990 is reviewed by the officers of the governing body and the audit/finance committee before the return is filed with the irs.”

“Annually all directors and officers complete and sign a statement that provides information regarding their interests and those of their family members that could give rise to conflicts. The members of the governing body make determinations of whether a conflict exists and review actual conflicts. Any person with a conflict is prohibited from participating in the governing body's deliberations and decisions in the transaction.”

“Compensation was determined based upon the market rate for an attorney with litigation experience in dane county, and was compared with compensation for attorneys doing similar nonprofit work.”

“The organization makes its governing documents, conflict of interest policy, and financial statements available to the public upon request.”

“The litigation center's amicus involvement would benefit the public generally by protecting the separation of powers within wisconsin state government and by protecting wisconsin's economy. Judicial review serves as a vital check on an administrative agency's mistakes. If a person or organization has no right to judicial review of an agency's determination that a specific permit is required, the person or organization would need to go through a time-consuming and costly process to obtain a permit that might not be legally required. The result would be a waste of resources and a deterrent to job creation and economic growth. This litigation would benefit the public by avoiding those pitfalls and making clear that judicial review is available at an early stage of the permitting process. The litigation center did not seek or receive any fees in this matter. County of dane et al. V. Public service commission of wisconsin et al. (wisconsin supreme court, appeal number 2021ap1325) in this matter, the litigation center filed an amicus brief on behalf of three trade associations to oppose a judge's rulings that were delaying the construction of a high-voltage transmission line. The wisconsin public service commission had unanimously approved that construction project. A conservation group sued to block that project. A trial court determined that the conservation group could engage in discovery into one commissioner's private life to search for evidence of bias. The wisconsin supreme court granted the commissioner's petition for review. This litigation affects broad public interests because it involves a project to construct a high-voltage transmission line that will allow for greater use of renewable energy in the midwest. This litigation also affects public interests because it involves the extent to which discovery may be conducted to uncover evidence that an administrative decision-maker was biased. The litigation center's amicus involvement would benefit the public generally by helping to advance the construction of this important high-voltage transmission line, by promoting public trust in wisconsin's administrative bodies, and by protecting our state's economy. The litigation center's amicus brief explains why the allegation of bias in this case is legally insufficient and why allowing discovery in this case would damage our state's regulatory climate, our state's economy, and the public's trust in administrative decision-making. The litigation center did not seek or receive any fees in this matter. Wisconsin manufacturers and commerce, inc. And leather rich, inc., v. Wisconsin department of natural resources, wisconsin natural resources board and preston cole (waukesha county circuit court, case number 2021cv342) in this matter, a not-for-profit business trade association and a dry cleaner filed a lawsuit against the wisconsin state government to seek a declaratory judgment and an injunction prohibiting a state agency from enforcing unpromulgated rules on so-called emerging contaminants under wisconsin's spills law. The business trade association is represented by the wisconsin institute for law and liberty, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit, public-interest law firm. The executive director of the litigation center filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the business trade association when summary judgment briefing was nearly completed. The wisconsin institute for law and liberty is still lead counsel on behalf of the business trade association, with the litigation center as co-counsel. The trial court issued the requested injunction. The case is on appeal in the wisconsin court of appeals. This litigation would benefit the public generally by forcing the wisconsin department of natural resources to comply with the law and promulgate rules designating certain emerging contaminants as hazardous substances under the spills law. The department's ad hoc enforcement of unwritten rules regarding hazardous substances harms the public becau”

“This litigation affects broad public interests involving covid-19, the federal government's asserted power to mandate vaccines, and the economy. The litigation center's amicus involvement would benefit the public generally by protecting the separation of powers within the federal government, protecting people's right to not be compelled by the federal government to receive a vaccine, and protecting wisconsin's economy from the effects of a federal vaccine mandate on businesses with 100 or more employees. The covid-19 pandemic has resulted in labor shortages and supply-chain issues. The litigation center's amicus involvement sought to prevent a federal vaccine mandate from exacerbating those labor and supply-chain problems. The litigation center did not seek or receive any fees in this matter. In re: mcp no. 165; osha rule on covid-19 vaccination and testing, 86 fed. Reg. 61402 (united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit; case number 21-7000) this matter is the consolidation of all lawsuits nationwide challenging the occupational safety and health administration's mandate requiring that employees of businesses with 100 or more employees either be vaccinated against covid-19 or undergo regular testing for covid-19. In this matter, the litigation center filed the same amicus brief that it had previously filed in tankcraft corp. And plasticraft corp. V. Occupational safety and health administration (see above). The litigation center's amicus involvement in this case benefited the public generally in the same ways that its amicus involvement in tankcraft did (see above).”