Our Work

The case arose after a new Republican majority in the Michigan House refused to send several bills passed by a previous Democratic-controlled legislature to the governor to become law.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court last month struck several powers held by state legislative committees over executive branch actions, a landmark decision that will have broad implications and bring Wisconsin more in line with other states.

Developed by two of the subject’s leading experts, the First Edition of State Constitutional Law: Cases and Principles provides a contemporary, authoritative treatment of the field, complete with majority approaches and alternatives across the country. The book provides detailed treatments of the wide range of state constitutional issues—not only rights, but also government structure, democracy, fiscal provisions, and intrastate relations.

In recent decades, the Wisconsin Legislature has increasingly empowered legislative committees, rather than its full membership, to wield control over state agencies and programs. This practice, which makes the state a national outlier, has drawn scrutiny recently from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. his Explainer examines the latest legal battle between Wisconsin’s legislative and executive branches, focusing on the legislature’s unusual approach to funding the childhood literacy program, the legal challenge it faces, and how it compares to other states—where legislative committees typically lack discretionary control over public funds. It also briefly discusses the legislature’s challenge to the governor’s veto power.

Recent scholarship persuasively argues that state constitutional law should be grounded in state-centered reasoning, not federal imitation. That approach, compelling at the 10,000-foot level, also requires development through examples closer to the ground. This symposium Article uses legislative vetoes—arrangements in which legislators can override executive action without passing new laws—to explore the practice and adjudication of state structural constitutionalism.

In a challenge to the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules's ability to indefinitely block administrative rules promulgated by executive agencies, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief arguing that this power violates the Wisconsin Constitution by allowing an unrepresentative legislative committee make binding statewide policy decisions. In 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that legislative vetoes over administrative rules violate the Wisconsin Constitution’s bicameralism and presentment requirements.

Just weeks after North Carolina Democrats won several prominent statewide offices in the 2024 general election, including governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general, the Republican-controlled legislature moved swiftly to limit the authority of these offices in what many have called a significant “power grab.” This Explainer analyzes this and seeks to situate it within the broader context and history of similar efforts in North Carolina and other states.

National-level developments in law and government typically grab the biggest headlines and drive discourse in the legal academy. With a high-stakes presidential election, major U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and more, 2024 has been no exception. But many consequential legal developments have unfolded at the state level as well. The Essays in this Special Issue explore questions pertaining to state public law, including examining distinctive features of state governance and the relationship between states and the federal government.

In a challenge to Governor Tony Evers use of his partial veto powers to extend a school funding increase from two to 402 years, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief arguing that this use of the power violates constitutional limits on the power and is contrary to the constitution's democratic commitments. In 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Governor Evers had not violated the limits on the partial veto power.

Decisions in California, Michigan, and Utah could serve as models for courts in other states facing power struggles between legislatures and proponents of voter-approved ballot initiatives.