Constitutional Law

In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Texas law mandating age verification for access to sexually explicit online material deemed “harmful to minors.” By finding the burden on adult speech to be only incidental, the court applied intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny.

This issue brief provides an overview of two partial veto cases decided by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in its 2024-25 term, LeMieux v. Evers, 2025 WI 12, and Wisconsin State Legislature v. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2025 WI 27.

Under the Wisconsin Constitution, the Governor may approve appropriation bills “in whole or in part.” The partial veto power afforded Wisconsin’s governors is considered to be one of the most extensive in the nation. Since its creation by constitutional amendment in 1930, Wisconsin governors have exercised the partial veto with increasing regularity and imagination. In response, the Legislature has challenged the Governor’s use of the partial veto in court and, on two occasions, amended the constitution with voter approval. This information memorandum provides background information on the authority of the Governor to partially veto appropriation bills under Wis. Const. art. V, s. 10 (1) and describes the limits on the Governor’s use of this authority.

Public officials' social media activity can be subject to challenge under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This issue brief summarizes the current state of the law with respect to First Amendment challenges to actions taken by public officials on social media platforms.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided City of Grants Pass v. Johnson which held that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment does not restrict the government from enforcing laws prohibiting camping or sleeping in public against homeless individuals. This issue brief discusses prior precedents relevant to the 8th Amendment, summarizes the Court’s decision in Grants Pass, and describes the impact of the decision in Wisconsin.

This information memorandum describes the circumstances under which a private, special, or local law may be enacted, explores whether such an enactment will be afforded a presumption of constitutionality if challenged, describes two tests that a court might use to resolve a constitutional challenge, and summarizes illustrative case law.

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the U.S. Supreme Court held that university admissions policies that consider race outside of an individualized context are impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court’s decision effectively, though not expressly, overturned prior decisions that had upheld raceconscious admissions policies if the policies allowed for the consideration of race as one of many factors, as part of a holistic review of each applicant. The Court’s decision does not, however, prevent admissions officers from considering a student’s own discussion of how race has impacted the student’s life. This issue brief describes the Court’s prior precedents on race-conscious admissions policies as well as the Court’s holding in Students for Fair Admissions.

Both the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions protect freedom of speech. These protections apply when K-12 public schools restrict the speech or expression of students. However, student speech rights are “not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” This issue brief discusses U.S. Supreme Court decisions establishing the extent of students’ free speech rights, including a recent decision concerning off-campus social media use.