WSBU v. Joel Brennan, 946 N.W.2d 101

In the 2017–19 biennial budget (2017 Wis. Act 59), Governor Walker used the partial-appropriation veto to strike individual digits in two dates, converting (a) a one-year moratorium on a school energy-efficiency revenue-limit adjustment into a moratorium until December 3018, and (b) a one-year delay in a bad-debt tax deduction into an effective date of July 1, 2078.
Act 59 with those vetoes became law on September 23, 2017; the legislature did not override the vetoes during the 2018 veto-review session.
Petitioners (WSBU) filed an original-action challenge to those digit vetoes on October 28, 2019—after the 2017–19 biennium had closed and after the 2019–21 biennial budget (2019 Wis. Act 9) had taken effect.
Respondents asserted the equitable defense of laches (unreasonable delay, lack of notice, and prejudice), arguing WSBU’s late challenge prejudiced state budget planning and reliance for the 2019–21 budget.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court (majority) concluded respondents proved all three laches elements, found equitable considerations favored applying laches given the reliance and fiscal-stability interests tied to biennial budgets, and dismissed the original action without reaching the constitutional merits of the digit vetoes.
A dissent (Justices Rebecca Grassl Bradley and Kelly) argued the court should have decided the merits, concluding the digit vetoes unlawfully amended/repealed previously enacted laws and therefore were unconstitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether WSBU's challenge was barred by laches (timeliness/reliance)	WSBU argued delay was not unreasonable and that challenges to vetoes may be brought later given long-term effects of the challenged dates	Respondents argued WSBU unreasonably delayed (filed after the biennium closed and after a new budget), respondents lacked notice of a claim, and delay prejudiced state budget planning and third-party reliance	Majority: Laches applies—WSBU delayed unreasonably, respondents lacked notice, and suffered prejudice; action dismissed.
Whether Governor exceeded constitutional partial-veto power by striking digits in dates to create new effective dates (i.e., whether the vetoes were unconstitutional amendments/repeals of prior laws)	WSBU argued the digit vetoes unlawfully created new dates/words and thus exceeded the governor’s authority to approve or reject parts of appropriation bills	Respondents defended the vetoes on the merits but maintained the court need not reach merits because laches bars relief	Majority: Did not reach merits (case dismissed on laches). Dissent: Would have held the vetoes unconstitutional as an impermissible executive amendment/repeal of legislative enactments.

State ex rel. Wren v. Richardson, 389 Wis. 2d 516 (Wis. 2019) (describes laches elements and discretionary nature of application)
Sawyer v. Midelfort, 227 Wis. 2d 124 (Wis. 1999) (equitable laches defense overview)
Winebow, Inc. v. Capitol-Husting Co., 381 Wis. 2d 732 (Wis. 2018) (discusses prior partial-veto history and reliance on long-standing veto modifications)
Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm, 391 Wis. 2d 497 (Wis. 2020) (separation-of-powers and limits on branch authority)
Schulz v. State, 615 N.E.2d 953 (N.Y. 1993) (applied laches to procedural challenge where fiscal reliance had closed the books)
State ex rel. Wis. Tel. Co. v. Henry, 218 Wis. 302 (Wis. 1935) (early Wisconsin partial-veto litigation precedent)
Citizens Util. Bd. v. Klauser, 194 Wis. 2d 484 (Wis. 1995) (prior Wisconsin partial-veto case permitting some executive reductions in appropriations)