Coyne v. Walker
862 N.W.2d 606
Wis. Ct. App.2015Background
- Act 21 (2011) added Governor and Administration Secretary approvals to rulemaking scope statements and draft rules, altering the SPI’s process.
- Act 21 requires Governor (and sometimes Secretary of Administration) approvals at two stages before a rule can proceed, potentially affecting costs to entities.
- Coyne parties filed for declaratory judgment challenging Act 21 as unconstitutional as applied to the SPI; circuit court granted summary judgment for Coyne.
- Walker and Huebsch challenged Coyne standing and argued Act 21 is constitutional, arguing rulemaking is a legislative power and not SPI supervisory power.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment for Coyne, ruling provisions infringing SPI supervisory power unconstitutionally applied; Walker and Huebsch appealed.
- This Court affirms the circuit court, holding Act 21 unconstitutional as applied to the SPI’s supervisory rulemaking authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coyne parties have standing to challenge Act 21 | Coyne has taxpayer standing (and others) | Coyne lacks standing | Coyne have taxpayer standing; standing assumed for purposes of appeal |
| Is Act 21 unconstitutional as applied to the SPI under article X, §1 | Act 21 impairs SPI’s supervisory power | Governor’s role legitimate within Act 21 | Act 21 unconstitutional as applied to the SPI |
| Whether rulemaking is a supervisory power of the SPI | Rulemaking is SPI supervisory power | Rulemaking may be assigned by Legislature with safeguards | Rulemaking is supervisory power of the SPI; Thompson controls to prevent transfer to other officers |
| Effect of Act 21 on SPI superiority in supervision | SPI must remain superior; Act 21 undermines | Act 21 does not undermine SPI’s supremacy | Act 21 gives Governor significant control, violating SPI superiority in supervision |
| Do severability considerations apply/were severability issues argued | Severability not addressed by parties | Not addressed on appeal | Court does not rule on severability; circuit court’s order to the extent severability implied remains intact |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Craney, 199 Wis. 2d 674 (Wis. 1996) (recognizes SPI supervisory power in education; limits sharing with other officers; sets framework for superiority)
- City of Appleton v. Town of Menasha, 142 Wis. 2d 870 (Wis. 1988) (taxpayer standing where public funds affected)
- Fortney v. School Dist. of West Salem, 108 Wis. 2d 167 (Wis. 1982) (sharing of supervisory power less applicable to SPI; context for supervisory limits)
- Burton v. State Appeal Bd., 38 Wis. 2d 294 (Wis. 1968) (deals with sharing of authority; cited in Thompson as not undermining SPI supremacy)
- West Salem Sch. Dist. v. Fortney, 108 Wis. 2d 167 (Wis. 1982) (see Fortney; supervisory power discussion context)
- Hezzie R. v. State, 219 Wis. 2d 848 (Wis. 1998) (severability and constitutional analysis guidance)