Milwaukee Police Association v. City of Milwaukee, 882 N.W.2d 333

Milwaukee's charter §5-02 (since 1938) required city employees to reside within city limits; violation led to termination.
In 2013 the Legislature enacted Wis. Stat. §66.0502 prohibiting local governments from imposing residency requirements and declaring such requirements a matter of statewide concern; it also grandfathered and then invalidated existing local rules and carved a 15-mile exception for certain emergency personnel.
On the statute's effective date Milwaukee's Common Council and Mayor passed a resolution directing continued enforcement of §5-02, asserting home-rule supremacy.
The Milwaukee Police Association sued for declaratory relief and §1983 damages; Milwaukee Professional Fire Fighters Local 215 intervened. Circuit court granted summary judgment invalidating the city's enforcement and recognized §66.0502-created liberty interest but awarded no §1983 damages; the court of appeals reversed on preemption (upholding §5-02) and affirmed denial of §1983 relief in part.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review and held §66.0502 preempts Milwaukee's charter residency rule (facially uniform statute trumps local charter under the home-rule amendment) but rejected the Police Association's §1983 substantive due process claim.

Issue	Police Association's Argument	City of Milwaukee's Argument	Held
Whether Wis. Stat. §66.0502 precludes Milwaukee from enforcing its charter residency requirement	§66.0502 is facially uniform and addresses statewide concern; it therefore trumps the conflicting charter provision	The charter governs a matter of local affairs (tax base, community investment, service delivery); §66.0502 does not "with uniformity" affect every city because impacts vary among municipalities	Court held §66.0502 precludes enforcement of §5-02: for home-rule purposes "with uniformity" is satisfied by facial uniformity (statute applies to any city, village, town, county, or school district)
Whether the Police Association is entitled to relief and damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (substantive due process)	The City unlawfully deprived members of a liberty interest in freedom from residency conditions for employment by continuing enforcement after §66.0502	City argued conduct did not shock the conscience and no fundamental liberty interest existed; any statutory interest is procedural, not substantive	Court held §1983 claim fails: no recognized substantive due process right (refused to create a new fundamental liberty), and City's actions did not "shock the conscience"

Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Walker, 358 Wis. 2d 1 (2014) (describing two-step home-rule analysis for statewide vs. local concern and uniformity)
Van Gilder v. City of Madison, 222 Wis. 58 (1936) (discussing scope of home-rule amendment and uniformity requirement)
State ex rel. Harbach v. City of Milwaukee, 189 Wis. 84 (1925) (early interpretation of home-rule amendment)
State ex rel. Sleeman v. Baxter, 195 Wis. 437 (1928) (interpreting home-rule amendment as a grant to municipalities and limits on that grant)
Thompson v. Kenosha County, 64 Wis. 2d 673 (1974) (facial uniformity satisfies the uniformity requirement)
Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992) (framework on substantive due process and reluctance to recognize new fundamental rights)