Latest news with #lawsuitSettlement
CBS News
18-06-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down GOP law weakening attorney general's power
A unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with the Democratic state attorney general Tuesday in a long-running battle over a law passed by Republicans who wanted to weaken the office in a lame duck legislative session more than six years ago. The court ruled 7-0 that requiring the attorney general to get permission from a Republican-controlled legislative committee to settle certain lawsuits was unconstitutional. The law is a separation of powers violation, the court said. The Republican-controlled Legislature convened a session in December 2018 after Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul defeated Republican incumbents. The laws signed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker on his way out the door weakened powers of both offices. At issue in the case decided Tuesday was the attorney general's power to settle lawsuits involving environmental and consumer protection cases as well as cases involving the governor's office and executive branch. The new law required the Legislature's budget committee, which is controlled by Republicans, to sign off on those settlements. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2020, when controlled by conservatives, upheld all of the lame duck laws and ruled they did not violate the separation of powers principle. But the ruling left the door open to future challenges on how the laws are applied. Kaul sued that year, arguing that having to seek approval for those lawsuit settlements violates the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. The Legislature argued that lawmakers have an interest in overseeing the settlement of lawsuits and that the court's earlier ruling saying there was no separation of powers violation should stand. Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford, who won election to the state Supreme Court in April and will be joining the court in August, ruled in favor of Kaul in 2022 saying the law was unconstitutional. A state appeals court overturned her ruling December, saying there was no separation of powers violation because both the executive and legislative branches of government share the powers in question. The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Legislature cannot "assume for itself the power to execute a law it wrote." There is no constitutional justification for requiring the Legislature's budget committee to sign off on court settlements at issue in the case, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote for the court. Kaul praised the ruling, saying in a statement that the decision "finally puts an end to the legislature's unconstitutional involvement in the resolution of key categories of cases." Republican legislative leaders who defended the law had no immediate comment Tuesday. The win for Kaul comes as Evers has been unsuccessful in overturning numerous law changes affecting the power of the governor. He's proposed undoing the laws in all four state budgets he's proposed and courts have upheld the laws when challenged.
CBS News
17-06-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down Republican law weakening attorney general's power
A unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with the Democratic state attorney general Tuesday in a long-running battle over a law passed by Republicans who wanted to weaken the office in a lame duck legislative session more than six years ago. The court ruled 7-0 that requiring the attorney general to get permission from a Republican-controlled legislative committee to settle certain lawsuits was unconstitutional. The law is a separation of powers violation, the court said. The Republican-controlled Legislature convened a session in December 2018 after Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul defeated Republican incumbents. The laws signed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker on his way out the door weakened powers of both offices. At issue in the case decided Tuesday was the attorney general's power to settle lawsuits involving environmental and consumer protection cases as well as cases involving the governor's office and executive branch. The new law required the Legislature's budget committee, which is controlled by Republicans, to sign off on those settlements. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2020, when controlled by conservatives, upheld all of the lame duck laws and ruled they did not violate the separation of powers principle. But the ruling left the door open to future challenges on how the laws are applied. Kaul sued that year, arguing that having to seek approval for those lawsuit settlements violates the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. The Legislature argued that lawmakers have an interest in overseeing the settlement of lawsuits and that the court's earlier ruling saying there was no separation of powers violation should stand. Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford, who won election to the state Supreme Court in April and will be joining the court in August, ruled in favor of Kaul in 2022 saying the law was unconstitutional. A state appeals court overturned her ruling December, saying there was no separation of powers violation because both the executive and legislative branches of government share the powers in question. The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Legislature cannot "assume for itself the power to execute a law it wrote." There is no constitutional justification for requiring the Legislature's budget committee to sign off on court settlements at issue in the case, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote for the court. Kaul praised the ruling, saying in a statement that the decision "finally puts an end to the legislature's unconstitutional involvement in the resolution of key categories of cases." Republican legislative leaders who defended the law had no immediate comment Tuesday. The win for Kaul comes as Evers has been unsuccessful in overturning numerous law changes affecting the power of the governor. He's proposed undoing the laws in all four state budgets he's proposed and courts have upheld the laws when challenged.
The Independent
10-06-2025
- Business
- The Independent
NCAA's Baker: Will Congress back $2.8B settlement with antitrust protection?
Now that the NCAA has taken care of its business, its president wants Congress to deliver. NCAA President Charlie Baker, like his predecessor a proponent of federal legislation to lock in some of the seismic changes hitting college sports, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that draft legislation circulating in Washington is what the association has been asking for. Now, it's simply a matter of passing it. ' One of the messages we got from them was, 'Clean up your own house first, and then come talk to us,'' said Baker, a former Massachusetts governor whose political acumen was a key selling point when he was selected for the NCAA job in 2023. The NCAA delivered, Baker said, with new rules that guarantee better post-graduate health care and scholarship protections for athletes, and then with the crown jewel of reforms — the $2.8 billion lawsuit settlement that a federal judge approved last week. The most fundamental change from the settlement is that schools can now directly pay players through revenue-sharing. For that to work, though, Baker and the NCAA have been lobbying for a limited form of antitrust protection that would prevent, for instance, lawsuits challenging the spending cap prescribed by the settlement, which will be $20.5 million in the first year. The Washington Post reported that draft legislation would include room for that sort of protection. Baker suggested that antitrust exemption might also include a carve-out for eligibility rules, which is not part of the settlement but that has landed the NCAA in court as a defendant in various lawsuits challenging a long-held rule that athletes have five years to complete four seasons of eligibility. 'The consequences of this for the next generation of young people, if you play this thing out, are enormous,' Baker said. 'You're moving away from an academic calendar to sort of no calendar for college sports, and that is hugely problematic.' Baker said the other top two priorities for the legislation are: —A preemption of state laws that set different rules for paying players, which amounts to 'competitive advantage stuff" for state legislatures seeking to give their public universities a recruiting edge. 'That's not just an issue for the NCAA on a level-playing-field basis, it's an issue for the conferences,' Baker said. Greg Sankey, the commissioner of the Southeastern Conference, agrees with that, recently saying that it was not good to have a league spanning 12 states operating under 12 different laws guiding player payments and other elements of college sports. —A ban on college athletes being deemed employees. Recently, Tennessee athletic director Danny White suggested collective bargaining for players was 'the only solution.' Whether that would lead to a direct employment model is difficult to know, but Baker said he's not the only one against it. 'This is something every student leadership group I've ever talked to has pretty strong feelings about," he said. 'They want to be students who play sports, they don't want to be employees because a lot of them worry about what the consequences for their time as students will be if they're obliged to be employees first.' ___ Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here. AP college football: and
Associated Press
10-06-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
NCAA's Baker: Will Congress back $2.8B settlement with antitrust protection?
Now that the NCAA has taken care of its business, its president wants Congress to deliver. NCAA President Charlie Baker, like his predecessor a proponent of federal legislation to lock in some of the seismic changes hitting college sports, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that draft legislation circulating in Washington is what the association has been asking for. Now, it's simply a matter of passing it. 'One of the messages we got from them was, 'Clean up your own house first, and then come talk to us,'' said Baker, a former Massachusetts governor whose political acumen was a key selling point when he was selected for the NCAA job in 2023. The NCAA delivered, Baker said, with new rules that guarantee better post-graduate health care and scholarship protections for athletes, and then with the crown jewel of reforms — the $2.8 billion lawsuit settlement that a federal judge approved last week. The most fundamental change from the settlement is that schools can now directly pay players through revenue-sharing. For that to work, though, Baker and the NCAA have been lobbying for a limited form of antitrust protection that would prevent, for instance, lawsuits challenging the spending cap prescribed by the settlement, which will be $20.5 million in the first year. The Washington Post reported that draft legislation would include room for that sort of protection. Baker suggested that antitrust exemption might also include a carve-out for eligibility rules, which is not part of the settlement but that has landed the NCAA in court as a defendant in various lawsuits challenging a long-held rule that athletes have five years to complete four seasons of eligibility. 'The consequences of this for the next generation of young people, if you play this thing out, are enormous,' Baker said. 'You're moving away from an academic calendar to sort of no calendar for college sports, and that is hugely problematic.' Baker said the other top two priorities for the legislation are: —A preemption of state laws that set different rules for paying players, which amounts to 'competitive advantage stuff' for state legislatures seeking to give their public universities a recruiting edge. 'That's not just an issue for the NCAA on a level-playing-field basis, it's an issue for the conferences,' Baker said. Greg Sankey, the commissioner of the Southeastern Conference, agrees with that, recently saying that it was not good to have a league spanning 12 states operating under 12 different laws guiding player payments and other elements of college sports. —A ban on college athletes being deemed employees. Recently, Tennessee athletic director Danny White suggested collective bargaining for players was 'the only solution.' Whether that would lead to a direct employment model is difficult to know, but Baker said he's not the only one against it. 'This is something every student leadership group I've ever talked to has pretty strong feelings about,' he said. 'They want to be students who play sports, they don't want to be employees because a lot of them worry about what the consequences for their time as students will be if they're obliged to be employees first.' ___ Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here. AP college football: and
