This case, Evers v. Marklein, was a constitutional challenge to the power of legislative committees to veto grants for conservation projects and to obstruct the updating of environmental health standards. It was initiated by the Governor and other executive branch officials in October 2023.

MEA submitted two friend-of-the-court briefs in the case on behalf of Save Our Water (S.O.H2O), a grassroots group of Marinette-area residents concerned about PFAS contamination, and Wisconsin Conservation Voters (WCV).

Part One: Victory!

In our first amicus brief, we argued that the ability of the legislature’s Joint Committee on Finance (JFC) to block funding for conservation projects under the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program was unconstitutional under the separation of powers provisions of our state constitution. We also urged the court to address instances of unlawful legislative interference in administrative rulemaking. 

Our brief described the real-world impact of interference in the rulemaking process. It recounts how, in 2020, a legislative committee met on the Friday before Christmas to act on an industry request to weaken PFAS monitoring requirements. The committee’s action was significant for the Marinette and Peshtigo communities because it effectively allowed Tyco/Johnson Controls to discharge PFAS from firefighting foam to Marinette’s wastewater treatment facility. As a result, these highly toxic substances continue to accumulate in local surface waters.

On July 5, 2024, the court ruled that the legislature’s interference in conservation funding decisions was indeed unconstitutional but declined to rule on the issue of legislative interference in the rulemaking process. However, the court announced in a separate order that it would consider taking up the matter at a later date. 

Part Two: Another Victory!

When the court took up the rulemaking question later that fall, MEA filed a second amicus brief on behalf of S.O.H2O and WCV. Again, our brief explained the real-world consequences of the legislature’s interference in the effective enforcement of environmental protections that are critical to safeguarding public health and the environment.

Echoing its earlier ruling, the court issued a decision on July 8, 2025, finding that the legislature may not alter legal rights and responsibilities outside of the lawmaking process, which under the state constitution requires the involvement of both houses and the governor. The court held that legislative committee vetoes violate these constitutional principles.