Evers v. Marklein Shows How Much the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Composition Matters
The Wisconsin Supreme Court doesn’t just decide high profile cases—it determines how state government functions at a structural level. Its rulings in Evers v. Marklein reshaped the balance of power between the Legislature and the executive branch in ways that directly affect Wisconsin families. These decisions were decided by a narrow margin, and a different Court composition could have produced a very different outcome. That’s why paying attention—and voting—in this spring’s election matters. The Court’s makeup determines how these questions will be answered for years to come.
When the Court interprets the Constitution, it decides:
• how much authority unelected administrative agencies have,
• how much oversight elected legislators can exercise, and
• whether families have any recourse when agencies impose new rules, mandates, or fees.
The Evers v. Marklein decisions show how a single vote on the Court can change the rules that govern everything from school regulations to environmental rules to professional licensing fees. These aren’t abstract legal questions—they shape the policies and costs families experience every day. And that’s exactly why the composition of the Court, and the choices voters make this spring, carry such longterm consequences.
What the Court Did in Evers v. Marklein
Two major rulings—one in 2024 and one in 2025—struck down longstanding legislative oversight tools.
Part I (2024): Spending Oversight Removed
The Court struck down laws that allowed the Joint Committee on Finance (JFC) to review and block certain conservation expenditures after funds were appropriated. The Court held that once money is appropriated, the executive branch has exclusive authority to spend it.¹
Part II (2025): Rulemaking Oversight Removed
The Court struck down multiple statutes that allowed the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) to pause, suspend, or block administrative rules—sometimes indefinitely—without passing a new law.²
This included striking down:
• temporary rule objections,
• indefinite rule objections,
• temporary rule suspensions, and
• repeated suspensions of the same rule.
These tools had existed for decades and were previously upheld by the Court.
These Rulings Removed Critical Checks on Administrative Power
1. Agencies can now impose fees or costs without meaningful oversight
Before these rulings, JCRAR could block or pause rules that raised fees, created new licensing requirements, or imposed compliance costs on families or small businesses. With those powers struck down, agencies may now:
• raise fees for professional licenses,
• increase park or permit fees,
• impose new regulatory costs,
• expand administrative requirements that affect families and local governments.
The only way to stop such changes now is for the full Legislature to pass a new law—something that can take months or may not be politically possible.
2. Families lose a layer of protection against sudden or controversial policy changes
Legislative committees acted as a guardrail. They could slow down or stop rules that were rushed, poorly designed, or out of step with legislative intent. Without that oversight:
• agencies can implement rules immediately,
• families and businesses may have less time to prepare,
• controversial rules may take effect before the public even knows they exist.
3. Spending can move forward without review—even if concerns arise
In the stewardship case, the Court removed JFC’s ability to block or review large expenditures after appropriation. This eliminates a safeguard that ensured taxpayer dollars were used responsibly.
4. Power shifts from elected legislators to unelected administrators
Legislative committees are made up of elected officials accountable to voters. Administrative agencies are not. This means:
• more policymaking power now rests with unelected bureaucrats,
• families have fewer avenues to challenge agency decisions,
• oversight is weakened at the exact moment when agencies are taking on more complex roles.
5. The rulings have already changed how the executive branch behaves
After Evers v. Marklein II, the Governor instructed agencies to bypass legislative committees entirely when finalizing rules, citing the Court’s decision.³
This shows how quickly the rulings reshaped state governance—and how much hinges on who sits on the Court.
Why This All Comes Back to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Composition
These decisions were not inevitable. They were the product of the Court’s current ideological makeup. A different Court could have upheld legislative oversight, preserved checks on administrative agencies, and maintained a balance of power that protects families from unilateral rulemaking.
The Court’s composition determines:
• whether agencies can raise fees without oversight,
• whether legislative committees can block harmful rules,
• whether spending can be reviewed before it goes out the door,
• whether families have a voice in the rulemaking process.
This is why the makeup of the Wisconsin Supreme Court matters so deeply. The Court’s decisions shape the rules that shape our lives—often in ways most people never see.
