Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce v. Tony Evers
960 N.W.2d 442
Wis. Ct. App.2021Background
- Three trade associations (Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Muskego Area Chamber, New Berlin Chamber) sued to enjoin the State’s planned release of a list: names of Wisconsin businesses with >25 employees that had ≥2 employees who tested positive for COVID-19 or were contact-traced, plus counts per business.
- Associations alleged the list derives from confidential patient health records and that release would violate Wis. Stat. ch. 146 confidentiality provisions, injure employee privacy, harm business reputations, and cause taxpayer injury.
- The circuit court denied the State’s and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s motions to dismiss and issued a temporary injunction preventing release.
- The State and Journal Sentinel obtained leave to appeal; appeals were consolidated and expedited.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the complaint failed to state a claim: Associations lacked a legally protectable interest under the cited statutes, their factual allegations were not plausibly sufficient to show unlawful disclosure or patient identification, and the public records law generally bars pre-release challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Associations identified a legally protectable interest under ch. 146 to support declaratory relief | Member businesses are "persons" entitled to damages under §146.84(1)(b)/(bm); Associations can sue on their behalf to prevent unlawful disclosure | Ch. 146 protects individual patients; only an "individual" may seek pre-release injunctive relief under §146.84(1)(c); businesses/associations are excluded | Held: No legally protectable interest — statutes protect patients as individuals and do not authorize the Associations’ pre-release claim |
| Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that release would permit identification of patients | Release of business names plus counts would allow coworkers/community to identify infected employees, especially at smaller workplaces | The list (business name + number) does not, on its face, reveal employee identities; allegation that identification is possible is speculative | Held: Allegations speculative and implausible; do not cross line from possibility to plausibility |
| Whether standing doctrines (taxpayer, zone-of-interest, judicial policy) can supply a right to sue | Taxpayer standing, zone-of-interest, or judicial-economy principles permit this suit despite statutory limits | Standing doctrines cannot substitute for a statutory or constitutional right; taxpayer standing requires showing unlawful expenditure; zone and judicial-policy do not establish the required statutory right | Held: Standing doctrines insufficient; plaintiff must point to a substantive statutory basis and failed to do so |
| Whether public records law (§19.356(1)) permits pre-release judicial review | Associations urge exceptions or other statutes override §19.356(1) | §19.356(1) bars pre-release challenges unless a statutory exception applies; no applicable exception here | Held: Pre-release judicial review is barred absent the narrow statutory exceptions; Associations identify none that apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Moustakis v. DOJ, 368 Wis. 2d 677 (Wis. 2016) (statutory interpretation controls whether an asserted interest is legally protected for declaratory relief)
- Voters with Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 382 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2018) (analyzing complaint to determine whether it states a claim rather than separately addressing standing)
- Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisers LLC, 356 Wis. 2d 665 (Wis. 2014) (standard for plausibility on a motion to dismiss)
- Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Olson v. Town of Cottage Grove, 309 Wis. 2d 365 (Wis. 2008) (elements of a justiciable declaratory judgment controversy)
- McConkey v. Van Hollen, 326 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2010) (judicial-economy rationale for addressing a case despite standing concerns)
- Fabick v. Evers, 396 Wis. 2d 231 (Wis. 2021) (taxpayer-standing principles requiring unlawful government expenditure)