Wisconsin Supreme Court Weighs DOJ Settlement Funds Dispute

The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard arguments on March 11, 2026, regarding a dispute over how the state Department of Justice (DOJ) handles settlement money received through legal settlements. At the heart of the case is a 2018 law, passed by the Republican-controlled legislature before Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul took office, which directs settlement funds to the state’s general fund.

The Core of the Dispute

Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley questioned Assistant Attorney General Hannah Jurss about the DOJ’s practice of depositing settlement funds into agency appropriations rather than allowing the legislature to directly allocate those funds. Bradley argued that the Wisconsin Constitution grants the legislature the power to determine how state funds are spent. She expressed concern that the DOJ’s approach could allow millions of dollars to remain unused within agency accounts, failing to benefit the people of Wisconsin.

“It’s not state money,” Bradley stated during oral arguments. “It belongs to the people of Wisconsin, and the constitution empowers the Legislature as the people’s representatives to say where the people’s money shall be spent.”

DOJ’s Defense

Assistant Attorney General Jurss countered that the 2018 law does not explicitly prevent the DOJ from placing settlement funds into appropriations within the general fund. She argued that the legislature would have needed to specifically prohibit this practice if it was their intention. Jurss also pointed out that the legislature still retains the authority to approve the DOJ’s budget and, has indirect control over how those funds are ultimately used.

Appeals Court Ruling

The case arrived at the Supreme Court after the 2nd District Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision in December 2024. The appeals court, in a 2-1 ruling, sided with the argument that the 2018 law intended for settlement money to be deposited directly into the general fund, which is under legislative control. Judge Lisa Neubauer, the dissenting voice on the appeals court, argued that the majority opinion focused too heavily on legislative intent rather than a strict interpretation of the law, and that the law allowed the Attorney General some discretion in managing the funds.

Justice Bradley’s Background

Rebecca Grassl Bradley, a Milwaukee native, has served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court since 2015, having been initially appointed by Governor Scott Walker and subsequently elected to a full term in 2016. She is the first Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice to have served as an intermediate appellate court judge as well as a circuit court judge. Her current term is set to expire on July 31, 2026, but she has announced she will not seek re-election.

Looking Ahead

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have significant implications for how settlement funds are managed in Wisconsin, potentially shifting the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches regarding the allocation of state resources. The ruling is expected to clarify the interpretation of the 2018 law and establish a precedent for future disputes over the control of state funds.