Wisconsin’s attorney general filed an appeal Monday against a Dane County judge’s ruling that effectively halted publication of the governor’s collective bargaining law.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen filed an appeal against last week’s ruling, arguing the Dane County Circuit Court had no jurisdiction over state legislators who are supposed to legally have legislative immunity.

The appeal also said the court could not interfere with the legislative process by preventing the publication of a bill and the court could not stop the publication of a bill on the basis of an open meetings violation, according to a statement from the Department of Justice.

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne filed a restraining order last Friday against publishing the bill that would limit collective bargaining for public employees, arguing the Wisconsin state Legislature did not give a 24-hour notice before a committee met to separate items in the bill.

Wisconsin’s open meetings law requires at least 24-hour notice of all Legislative sessions. Dane County District Judge Maryann Sumi ruled in favor of the order.

Republicans largely disagreed with Sumi’s ruling and were optimistic about the appeals case.

John Jagler, spokesperson for Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, said for Sumi to make a ruling in order to block the publication of the budget repair bill as law is an overreach of the courts’ jurisdiction. 

“We’re confident the appeals process will go forward [to reveal the court’s overreach] and the budget repair bill will become law,” Jagler added.

However, Rep. Brett Hulsey, D-Madison, is in favor of the court’s ruling, as it promotes the tradition of following open meetings procedures.

“I applaud the protection of our Wisconsin clean government in open meetings tradition by Judge Sumi,” Hulsey said. “I look forward to discussions of this in hearings to come in the future.”

Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, said he is disappointed the process to pass the bill has become so contentious. He said the bill would not be stuck in the courts today had it been handled through normal Legislative processes and if Gov. Scott Walker had been willing to negotiate.

Part of Van Hollen’s case was built around the Legislature being in session, which provides it with certain protections under the state constitution.

The Wisconsin Constitution says legislators are not subject to any civil process during a session of the Legislature or for 15 days before the commencement and after the termination of each session.

Since the members of the state Legislature who voted to pass the collective bargaining bill were in session within the timeline stated by the constitution, Sumi’s ruling may not have jurisdiction over the defendants.

Legal precedent has also held the court system cannot interfere with the legislative process. Van Hollen’s appeal alleges the order to block publication of the collective bargaining bill goes against this precedent.

The court has the authority to void a law if it is deemed unconstitutional. A bill that passed through a violation of the open meetings law may be deemed unconstitutional, but only after the bill has been published and enacted into law, which Sumi’s order prevented.