You are here

Opinions

Below is a list of opinions specially selected for public release by judges in the district.  For a detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.

Note:  This database does not contain all decisions issued by all judges and is not intended to replace PACER or other more comprehensive case law sites.  The PACER system provides a report of written opinions as defined by the Judicial Conference.  Access to both the report and the opinions is free.  In order to access court records via PACER you must have a PACER account.  For PACER access and online registration, please click here.

23-CV-876 Doe #1 v. Mukwonago Area School District et al

Decision and Order

Plaintiff, a transgender girl attending Mukwonago Area School District (MASD), filed this case in 2023, alleging that MASD violated her rights under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause by instituting a policy that barred her from using the girls’ bathroom at school. The preliminary injunction entered on her behalf was affirmed on appeal but later dissolved on plaintiff’s motion as she was no longer subject to the bathroom policy. The U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases related to transgender rights that arguably affected plaintiff’s claims. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings as to both claims, and plaintiff moved to compel discovery. The Court concluded that it no longer had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Title IX claim because she now seeks damages only for emotional distress. Judgment on the pleadings was denied as to the equal protection claim. Plaintiff’s motion to compel was granted in part for a narrowed timeframe.

File:
PDF icon 23-CV-876 Doe #1 v. Mukwonago Area School District et al (112).pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Tuesday, September 8, 2026

23-CV-948 Kuether v. Posley et al

Decision and Order

Plaintiff, a former employee of the Milwaukee Public Schools, alleges that she was reassigned and subjected to discriminatory terms and conditions in retaliation for First Amendment activity involving her support of the Milwaukee Teachers Association. She also claims she was cut off from speaking during school board meetings, infringing on her First Amendment right to free speech. She alleges that she was discriminated and retaliated against based on her race (white) and sex (female). The court found factual disputes prevented the entry of summary judgment with respect to portions of the First Amendment claims but resolved all other claims in the defendants’ favor. Trial is currently scheduled for May 2027.

File:
PDF icon 23-CV-948 Kuether v. Posley et al (208).pdf
Judge:
William E. Duffin
Date:
Thursday, August 27, 2026

25-CV-1250 Soo Line Railroad Company v. Village of Elm Grove

Decision and Order

Plaintiff Soo Line Railroad Company alleges that the Village of Elm Grove’s condemnation of its land for a stormwater management project is preempted by federal law. The court denied Soo Line’s motion for a preliminary injunction because it failed to demonstrate that condemnation would unreasonably interfere with railroad transportation and, therefore, did not establish a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. The Village thereafter filed a motion for partial summary judgment months before the deadline to do so, but the parties’ conflicting expert opinions created a dispute of fact preventing entry of summary judgment.

File:
PDF icon 25-CV-1250 Soo Line Railroad Company v. Village of Elm Grove (69).pdf
Judge:
William E. Duffin
Date:
Tuesday, July 21, 2026

26-CV-786 Americans for Citizen Voting PAC v. Meagan Wolfe et al

Opinion

Plaintiff Americans for Citizen Voting PAC sued the members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, who is represented by the Wisconsin Attorney General, challenging the constitutionality of an elections law. The Wisconsin Legislature moved to intervene, based primarily upon a Wisconsin statute that it claims gives it an interest in the litigation. The Court found that the statute is unconstitutional under the Wisconsin constitution as applied to the facts of the case. Therefore, the statute cannot convey an interest in the litigation. Moreover, any interest the legislature does have is adequately represented by the existing parties. Therefore, the Court denies the motion to intervene.

File:
PDF icon 26-CV-786 Americans for Citizen Voting PAC v. Meagan Wolfe et al.pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Tuesday, July 14, 2026

25-CV-131 Nehls et al v. Parker et al

Order

Plaintiffs alleged that three defendant police officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights when the officers entered their home after arriving to investigate allegations of disorderly conduct from earlier that day at an elementary school. The court found that exigent circumstances did not justify the officers’ entry into the home and they were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the unlawful entry into the home. A trial is currently scheduled in October 2026 to determine damages.

File:
PDF icon 25-CV-131 Nehls et al v. Parker et al (49).pdf
Judge:
William E. Duffin
Date:
Thursday, May 28, 2026

Pages