Great Lakes Legal Foundation Inc

“Description: insurance. Amount: 1,535. Description: licenses and fees. Amount: 1,964. Description: office expenses. Amount: 2,775. Description: travel. Amount: 63. Description: dues and subscriptions. Amount: 8,056. Total to form 990-ez, line 16: 14,393.”

“Description: pledges and grants receivable. Beg. Of year amount: 15,000. End of year amount: 0. Description: accounts receivable. Beg. Of year amount: 0. End of year amount: 54,561. Description: prepaid expenses and deferred charges. Beg. Of year amount: 896. End of year amount: 895.”

“Description: accounts payable and accrued expenses. Beg. Of year amount: 5,460. End of year amount: 18,278.”

“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 2022, 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. Wisconsin manufacturers and commerce, inc. V. Village of pewaukee (waukesha county circuit court, case number 2022cv515) the litigation center is representing a not-for-profit business trade association in this matter. This matter seeks declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting further enforcement of the village of pewaukee's so-called transportation user fee. The village imposes this fee on all developed property within the village, with limited exceptions. The litigation center is arguing that this fee is illegal. The litigation center filed this lawsuit in 2022. If successful, this lawsuit will benefit the public 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 are considering adopting such a fee. This litigation seeks to set a 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 matter. Michael byl et al. V. Town of laketown (polk county circuit court, case number 22cv274) in this matter, the litigation center filed a lawsuit on behalf of five farmers to challenge the legality of a town ordinance that virtually prohibits livestock farms from expanding within the town. This lawsuit seeks a declaration that the ordinance is unlawful and an injunction preventing further enforcement of it. If successful, this matter will benefit the public by protecting wisconsin's agriculture industry, protecting livestock farmers from government overreach, and enforcing our state's livestock facility siting law (wis. Stat. 93.90), which generally bars local governments from regulating the process for siting or expanding a livestock facility. Several other towns in wisconsin have enacted an ordinance virtually identical to laketown's, which was based on a model ordinance that those towns drafted with the assistance of legal counsel. If the litigation center prevails in this lawsuit, those other towns will likely repeal their unlawful anti-farm ordinances as well. These ordinances pose an existential threat to wisconsin's livestock farms, especially if they are adopted by other communities throughout the state. If these ordinances are allowed to destroy the livestock- farm industry in wisconsin, many other sectors of wisconsin's economy would be significantly damaged, including dairy processors and cheesemakers. The litigation center did not seek or receive any fees in this ongoing lawsuit. Backus v. Waukesha county (wisconsin supreme court, appeal number 2020ap307) in this matter, the litigation center filed an amicus brief on behalf of a not-for-profit business trade organization in the wisconsin supreme court. This case involved a dispute over the compensation due to a homeowner when the county government obtained a temporary limited easement on his property to do maintenance work on a nearby highway. The litigation center's effort in this matter benefited the public by helping to ensure that property owners receive just compensation, as required by the fifth amendment to the u.s. Constitu”

“Wisconsin manufacturers and commerce, inc. Et al. V. Tony evers et al. (wisconsin supreme court, appeal numbers 2020ap2081 & 2020ap2103) in this matter in 2022, the litigation center represented three business trade organizations by performing oral argument in the wisconsin supreme court and filing a motion for clarification after receiving an adverse decision from that court. This case involved a dispute over whether certain records regarding covid-19 were barred from being released by the state government under wisconsin's public records law because they were privileged patient health care records. Three business trade organizations filed this lawsuit to block the state government from releasing those records. After the wisconsin supreme court ruled that the public records law barred the three plaintiffs from filing this type of pre-release lawsuit, the litigation center filed a motion for clarification, requesting the supreme court to clarify that certain language in the lower court of appeals' decision was not binding precedent. Specifically, the motion for clarification disputed the court of appeals' discussion of the doctrine of standing and its language stating that wisconsin's medical privacy law does not protect information derived from a record. This litigation affected broad public interests involving the scope of wisconsin statutes governing confidential health care records, information about covid-19, and the ability to bring a pre-release lawsuit under wisconsin's public records law. This litigation sought to obtain an injunction from the trial court and to create precedent at the wisconsin supreme court. If successful, this litigation would have benefited the public by preventing the governor's administration from releasing information that would harm the economy and violate privacy laws. This litigation would have also benefited the public by setting precedent to enhance protection for confidential health care records, clarify who may sue to protect the confidentiality of such records, and enable more persons to file pre-release lawsuits to protect their privacy. This lawsuit sought to benefit the public generally by protecting covid-19 patients from having their personally identifiable information released by their state government pursuant to a public records request. The litigation center's motion for clarification benefited the public by successfully getting the supreme court to disavow the court of appeals' statement that wisconsin's medical privacy law does not protect information derived from a record. If left intact, that language would have gutted health care patients' right to privacy in their medical records. The litigation center's efforts in this matter aimed to protect the privacy rights of health care patients throughout wisconsin. The litigation center did not seek or receive any fees in this matter. Wisconsin manufacturers and commerce, inc. V. Wisconsin department of natural resources (outagamie county circuit court, case number 2022cv386) in this matter, the litigation center filed a lawsuit on behalf of a not-for-profit business trade organization against a state agency to force it to turn over un-redacted copies of certain records under wisconsin's public records law. The trade organization sought records concerning the agency's administration of a grant program. The agency withheld certain records and provided redacted copies of certain records. This matter benefited the public by enforcing wisconsin's public records law, promoting government transparency, and investigating possible corruption. The plaintiff sought these government records after being alerted that conflicts of interest or corruption were possibly occurring in the state agency's administration of this grant program. The plaintiff obtained these records so it could investigate this possible government corruption. The litigation center did not seek or receive any client fees in this matter. The plaintiff's complaint requested”

“Wisconsin manufacturers and commerce, inc. And leather rich, inc. V. Wisconsin department of natural resources (wisconsin court of appeals, appeal number 22ap718) 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 in 2022. The case is on appeal in the wisconsin court of appeals. This litigation would benefit the public by forcing the wisconsin department of natural resources (dnr) to comply with the law and promulgate rules designating certain emerging contaminants as hazardous substances under the spills law. The dnr's ad hoc enforcement of unwritten rules regarding hazardous substances harms the public because the public does not have fair warning of which substances are considered hazardous or in what concentrations or contexts. Requiring the dnr to follow the formal rulemaking process would benefit the public by allowing for legislative oversight, allowing public input in the rulemaking process, and providing clear guidance to the public as to what the rules are. The litigation center did not seek or receive any fees in this matter. Wisconsin justice initiative, inc. V. Wisconsin elections commission (wisconsin supreme court, appeal number 2020ap2003) in this matter, the litigation center filed an amicus brief in the wisconsin supreme court on behalf of a not-for-profit business trade organization. This lawsuit involves a dispute over the validity of an amendment to the wisconsin constitution known as "marsy's law," which provided protections to crime victims. The litigation center's amicus brief urged the wisconsin supreme court to uphold marsy's law after a trial court had declared it unlawfully adopted. The amicus brief highlighted the important role that the wisconsin legislature played in drafting the referendum language that ultimately became marsy's law in wisconsin. This lawsuit broadly affects the public interest because it challenges the validity of a constitutional amendment that provided enhanced protections for crime victims. The litigation center's involvement in this case sought to benefit the public by urging the wisconsin supreme court to uphold this important public policy. The litigation center also sought to benefit the public by highlighting the deference that courts owe to the legislature when reviewing the propriety of referendum language, thereby helping to preserve the separation of powers among the three branches of government. The litigation center did not seek or receive any fees in this matter. Bad river band of the lake superior tribe of chippewa indians of the bad river reservation v. Enbridge energy company, inc. (u.s. District court for the western district of wisconsin, case number 3:19cv602) in this matter, the litigation center filed an amicus brief in federal district court on behalf of three business trade organizations from wisconsin, michigan, and ohio. A native american tribe brought this lawsuit against an energy company regarding a stretch of pipeline that runs across tribal land. The litigation center filed an amicus brief emphasizing the devastating economic effects that would result if the court were to order that segment of pipeline to close immediately. This matter and the litigation center's involvement broad”