Alright, good afternoon everybody.
Can everybody hear me okay?
Alright, great.
Well, I'm Attorney General Josh
Call. Thank you for joining us here
today. I wanted to say a few
words and then open it up for
questions on the oral argument
from this morning in a case
in which I and some
other members of the executive
branch Thank you very much.
are challenging aspects
of the lame duck law.
And I think all of you probably
remember, but just to quickly remind
folks, after Governor Evers
and I were first elected to our
current offices in 2018,
the legislature rushed into
special session and passed
legislation that limited our
authorities, the authority that had
been in place for our predecessors.
There has been years
and years' worth of litigation
regarding certain aspects of
those laws. And today was
an argument regarding two critical
aspects of one
of those parts of legislation.
These relate to resolutions
of cases brought by the
Wisconsin Department of Justice to
enforce our laws.
That includes one category
of cases where we are bringing
enforcement actions on behalf
of the state of Wisconsin and trying
to settle those in cases.
So for example, if we bring a
civil consumer protection
enforcement action to try to
resolve a case on behalf of
consumers.
This provision requires us currently
to get approval from a legislative
committee before we can resolve
those civil actions.
Likewise, if we're bringing in
environmental enforcement action,
there's a required committee review
if it's a civil case.
Separately, we're also asking for
the court to strike down review of
cases that we are bringing
where they relate to the
administration of an executive
branch agency's programs.
That can be something as simple
as somebody working with
the Department of Transportation
having a car accident,
we bring in enforcement action,
we are arguing that we as an
executive branch agency are able to
resolve that without having
intervention from a legislative
committee.
The separation of powers principles
are obviously somewhat abstract,
but I want to emphasize that what we
are seeing in these cases in
Wisconsin, in a lot of ways,
mirrors what's going on with the
federal government right now.
At the federal level, what we're
seeing is the executive branch
trying to pull...
legislative power into its own hands
and making decisions about how
legislation should be applied or
whether it should be applied.
Here in Wisconsin, what we saw
instead was an effort to
concentrate power in the
legislature, but it's really a
mirror image of what we're seeing
happening at the federal level right
now. Our system was designed
to be one that has checks and
balances.
Part of our protection for our
freedom and our liberty in this
country is having multiple
different sources of authority
within the government.
That's why we have three co-equal
branches of government.
This case is about supporting that
principle and ensuring that the
separation of powers remains strong
here in Wisconsin.
So with that, I'm happy to open it
up to any questions.
So if I understood the argument by
the legislature's attorney today,
it wasn't that,
it was that the legislature does
have some, but
not all the authority in cases
like this, are you arguing
that in fact they don't?
That's right.
So there was a case brought several
years ago, known as SEIU.
That's a case that I personally
argued at the State Supreme Court.
And in that case, the court did not
grant our challenge to the
entire ability of the legislature to
review settlements.
It concluded that there could be
some rare cases where
the legislature might have an
interest. For example, if the
legislature itself was...
the party in the case that asked us
to bring an action, the court said,
well, in those types of cases, the
legislature has its own
institutional interest.
You could also imagine a case where
a settlement might require the
legislature to pass an
appropriation.
And we don't have the ability to
tell the legislature how to do their
constitutionally-assigned
responsibility.
So what we've argued here, though,
is that these two types of gasses,
these enforcement actions that we're
bringing, like environmental and
consumer cases. Thank you very much.
Thank you. or cases where we're
representing an executive branch
agency that's administering its
program, those are not areas
where the legislature has any
constitutional interest.
Those are core executive branch
functions and the legislature
therefore shouldn't be able to
prevent us from cases.
The assistant attorney general of
jurors today argued that the
legislature could instead
legislate after settlement is made
about how those funds should be
credited.
But they did credit them to
the general fund and then there was
a lawsuit that you
were...
The DOJ was putting it in a
different general fund, not the
general general fund.
And so there was a separate lawsuit
about that. And then the appellate
court ordered you to put it in
the general fund that they wanted.
So if the idea is that they
should legislate laws and
not oversee your work
in that, then if they did do that,
would you then comply with that
later?
Yes, so there are two separate
issues I want to spell out
here. So one is what the
legislature has authority to do and
then a separate issue is what the
legislature actually has done.
So our argument in this case is
that the legislature can't get
involved in the execution of
these settlements. They can't decide
whether the settlements go forward.
What we also have said is that the
legislature could decide how money
should be spent once there is
a settlement. So as an example,
there's legislation regarding these
opioid funds that we've brought in.
We've helped to secure about $780
million now of funds from
the resolution of these opioid
cases.
And there's a statute that provides
that 30% of those funds go to the
Department of Health Services and
the Department Health Services
decides how those dollars are
allocated.
Now, we don't object to
them setting in place a statute that
says how those funds are allocated
There is another case, and you're
exactly right, about what
the statute they passed means.
So we're not saying they don't have
authority to pass a statute
about how our funds are spent.
What we're saying is their
interpretation of what that statute
says is wrong.
It's inconsistent with what the law
is.
So they do have the ability to set
statutes that direct where the
dollars go from settlements, but
whether they've done so in a way
that is consistent with
our understanding of their view is
not always the case.
Wanted to ask about Elon Musk's
and his group's payments to voters.
Just curious how fine of
a line he's walking with criminal
law.
Also curious if you're looking into
him for criminal violations and
whether voters could also be
criminally liable for accepting
any money from him.
Yeah, well let me say a few things.
So first, as I'm sure you're aware,
we filed litigation seeking an
order to enjoin
certain conduct that
Musk was engaging in, as well as the
PAC. That went through the court
process and we, of course, did
not receive a favorable decision
there.
What we were doing is executing the
authority that we at the Department
of Justice have.
So there's a statute, and
it's cited in case
materials, that specifically gives
the Attorney General authority to
seek to bring actions into
compliance with the state election
laws. So we argued in that case
that a court order
would help ensure that the election
laws were followed.
We do not at the Department of
Justice have original prosecution
authority for those types of cases.
That's authority that the DAs in
the state have.
So questions about those
aspects of the matter are questions
for the DA's offices.
I also think that, you know, I hope
that in the future the legislature
considers taking a look at the
laws that we have in place and
figuring out ways to help make sure
that we don't have similar
activities occurring in future
elections.
Do you plan to file a new
lawsuit against Elon Musk?
I'm sorry, I missed the first part
of that.
of that. Do you have plans to file a
new lawsuit against anyone?
We never speak to future
plans we have along those lines.
I don't in any way say that to
suggest that there will be a future
action. Our actions, though, were
prospective. They were directed at
activity that was coming up just
a few days ahead of time.
And that was the focus of that kind
of civil enforcement action.
So that was focus
we've had so far, and that's as much
as I can say at this point.
You mentioned that maybe there's
room for the legislature to
change laws related to these types
of giveaways.
What changes do you think could be
pursued? What would you like to see?
That's something that we're going to
be looking at. This is obviously
still just a few days ago that
these events took place, but
it's my expectation that we'll
have the opportunity to have
discussions with legislators
about what changes may
help prevent similar circumstances
in the future.
Just when someone comes to the back
of your case, do you think that you
have any kind of idea, for example,
should a man have passed through
custody for that? ...
That's, having litigated the civil
case, this is not something that we
would weigh in, nor would I weigh in
generally on sort of how DAs should
look at the cases.
That's really a question for the DAs
themselves.
What are your takeaways from Susan
Crawford's resounding victory last
night?
Well, I think there are two
major takeaways.
One is, you know, part of the
campaign, particularly from Judge
Schimel, was criticism
of the progressive majority
in the current court, and
I think this is a pretty resounding
mandate in support of the
approach that.
the majority on the court has taken
to enforcing and applying Wisconsin
laws.
This is a court that has
restored access to
absentee ballot drop boxes, for
example.
It's the court that ruled
in favor of fairer
maps in Wisconsin.
It's a court has weighed in
in a variety of areas.
And so I think it's a strong
mandate.
I think we're still waiting on the
exact numbers, but it looks like it
will be about a 10 point margin.
I believe all four of the
progressive justices, assuming this
holds up for Judge Crawford
as a ten point win, will have all
won by double digits in four of the
last five elections.
So I think there's a very clear
mandate in favor of
their approach to judging.
The second thing I think is clear is
that obviously Elon Musk was
an enormous part of.
this campaign, and
I think this is a really strong
rebuke of Doge and of
what we're seeing from the Trump
administration in terms of the
sabotage of federal
government agencies, efforts to
dismantle programs, and
a rejection of the idea that
some of the wealthiest people in the
world, including in Musk's case
literally the wealthest person in
the world, should be
slashing government programs in
order to help fund tax cuts for
themselves.
Any plan from DOJ to challenge the
congressional maps since they threw
out the precedent in
the Johnson case? I'll see you next time. Bye.
Our general posture at DOJ is
to defend state laws when they're
challenged, that there are
exceptions to that for sure,
but again with respect to
any future litigation, that's not
something we generally comment on,
which is not meant to suggest there
is something, but just a general
approach we take.
No, no conversation with
the governor's office about trying
to bring it to you. Obviously, you
know, he was a little bit true to
these boundaries, but I'm sure he
would like them to look different
than they do today.
You certainly can ask the governor's
office that question,
but, you know, any future litigation
is a matter we would discuss when
that came up.
You talk about slashing government
programs. Yesterday your office
announced that Wisconsin joined a
multi-state lawsuit against
HHS over grand cuts.
Can you talk a little bit about how
you see those cuts affecting
Wisconsin and what the importance of
that lawsuit is?
Absolutely. So there have been
obviously sweeping cuts in
lots of areas that have destabilized
programs that are really critical to
the American people.
There have been a few areas though
that have really been a concerted
effort from the Trump administration.
One, which I can talk about another
time, is law enforcement.
There's clearly been an effort to
cut funds that support law
enforcement, not to mention the
pardons regarding the folks who
were involved January 6th, the
efforts to undermine the
FBI.
But another area is protecting
the health and well-being of the
American people.
So we earlier brought a lawsuit
involving efforts to reduce
funding for National Institute
of Health grants.
That's critical funding for research
that works to fight diseases like
cancer and Alzheimer's.
Thanks for watching! But now there's
also been a massive cut to
a variety of programs funded by
HHS, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services.
There are a number of different
programs impacted that includes
preparations for pandemics
or other infectious disease,
which at a time when we've got
measles outbreaks as well as
concerns about bird flu is really
concerning.
It impacts funds that go to
emergency preparedness, and
it also impacts funds that help with
mental health treatment and
substance abuse disorder recovery.
The impact in Wisconsin alone
is over 200 million dollars
from those cuts, and we've argued
that they did so unlawfully.
And I think it's important to note,
we filed a number of suits against
the Trump administration, and
consistently in these suits we've
won orders blocking the
administration from going forward
with what it's tried to do.
In some cases they're still very
early, but in the majority of the
cases we've gotten orders.
And it's tough to get those kinds of
preliminary orders.
We saw that actually in the
must case where we were asking for
quick injunctive relief and it's
a very high bar, we know that,
but it's been granted consistently
in these cases challenging the Trump
administration because their actions
are so clearly flouting
the law.
So, you know, we're hopeful we will
be successful in this challenge
to health and human services funds,
but also to put this in perspective,
the scope of this cut of over
$200 million In our
opioid settlements that we were
talking about, we've recovered about
$780 million
on behalf of the state of Wisconsin.
So these cuts here are more than a
quarter of that just in this
one cut to Wisconsin.
Now, it's not all opioid funds, so
this is a bit of an apples and
oranges comparison, but it's a very
large amount of funds that will
impact our ability to help the
health and well-being of
Wisconsinites. And we all know why
these funds are being cut.
It's because they are trying to fund
massive tax cuts for some
of the wealthiest people in the
world like Elon Musk.
I think that is absolutely wrong,
and that's why we went to court to
fight back against this.
The Speaker of the House has said
that the State Supreme
Court's rulings, or lack thereof
on certain cases, could hold up the
state budget process.
Are you concerned that the Court is
taking too long as your rulings in
certain cases and are you concerned
the budget being held up
could hurt priorities for DOJ?
Well, I'm certainly hopeful the
budget will proceed on the normal
course. I mean, there are court
cases pending all the
time.
And so this session is
not unusual.
I realize that there are some that
specifically may impact the
budget. But that doesn't mean that
there can't be a lot of progress
made. Thanks for watching! other
aspects of the budget.
I will say I've had conversations
with a number of
lawmakers of both parties.
I know that people are engaged and
so it's my hope that the budget
process will move forward as
it normally does but ultimately
that's a decision for the
legislature.
Do you think the governor is likely
to prevail in the 400-year veto
case?
We litigated that case and I'm
always reluctant to speculate
about what the results will be, so
we're just going to have to wait and
see.
That being said, the court usually
wraps up its term as
we get into late spring,
and so I expect in the next few
months we're going to see resolutions
of a lot of cases.
Thanks, everyone.
Thank you all. Thank you.