Metropolitan Associates v. City of Milwaukee, 796 N.W.2d 717

Act 86 (2007 Wis. Act 86) allows municipalities to opt out of de novo review and provide enhanced Board of Review and enhanced certiorari rights.
Milwaukee adopted an opt-out ordinance in 2008; opt-out taxpayers face enhanced certiorari review rather than § 74.37 de novo review.
Pre-Act 86, Wisconsin allowed certiorari or de novo review; Nankin (2001) invalidated county population thresholds restricting de novo review.
Metropolitan Associates sued, contended Act 86 violates equal protection; circuit court granted summary judgment for Metro; court of appeals reversed; Supreme Court granted review.
The court ultimately held Act 86 unconstitutional as applied to opt-out municipalities, and severability was addressed to return to pre-Act 86 procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Act 86 violate equal protection?	Metro argues opt-out creates a distinct class with no rational basis.	Milwaukee defends Act 86 as rationally related to efficiency and local choice.	Yes, unconstitutional equal protection as applied.
Are enhanced Board of Review and enhanced certiorari significantly different from de novo review?	Opt-out rights yield a significantly different process than de novo.	Differences are not constitutionally significant or justify unequal treatment.	Yes, they are significantly different; constitutes unequal treatment.
Is there a jury trial right under either de novo or enhanced certiorari proceedings?	De novo may have jury trial rights; enhanced certiorari does not.	Neither provides a jury trial right.	De novo has no jury trial right; enhanced certiorari also lacks one.
Are the unconstitutional provisions severable from Act 86?	Severability should preserve rest of Act 86.	Severability should apply to remove unconstitutional parts but keep remaining framework.	Unconstitutional provisions are severable; rest of Act 86 can be severed to restore pre-Act procedures.

Nankin v. Village of Shorewood, 245 Wis. 2d 86 (Wis. 2001) (establishes three-step equal-protection framework for Act 86)
Village Food & Liquor Mart v. H & S Petroleum, Inc., 254 Wis. 2d 478 (Wis. 2002) (tests for jury-trial rights under historical common-law actions)
Milwaukee Brewers v. Wisconsin Dept. of Health & Soc. Serus., 130 Wis. 2d 79 (Wis. 1986) (rational-basis review guidance in equal-protection challenges)
Nankin v. Village of Shorewood, 245 Wis. 2d 86 (Wis. 2001) (distinguishes substantial differences in review processes demolished by population-based thresholds)
Harvot v. Solo Cup Co., 320 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2009) (five-part rational-basis framework reference for equal protection)