Wisconsin just dropped a legal bombshell that’s got environmentalists cheering and some businesses sweating.
The state’s Supreme Court, in a tight 5-2 ruling on Tuesday, flipped lower court decisions on their head, giving the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) the green light to tackle toxic messes like PFAS under the Spills Law, even before these chemicals get the official “hazardous” stamp.
The Washington Examiner reported that the court empowered state regulators to hold polluters accountable for cleaning up chemicals like PFAS—those pesky “forever chemicals” that refuse to break down—without waiting years for legislative red tape to catch up.
This saga kicked off back in 2021 when Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, representing Leather Rich, a dry cleaning outfit in Oconomowoc, challenged the Spills Law.
They argued it was unfair to enforce cleanups without a formal rule-making process to label PFAS as hazardous. It’s a fair point—shouldn’t there be clear rules before the hammer drops?
Under Wisconsin’s Spills Law, if you contaminate water, you clean it up—no ifs, ands, or buts. The state has leaned on this law to help communities, from bustling Madison to rural outposts, grappling with tainted drinking water.
Yet, the idea of bureaucrats acting before a substance is officially flagged as dangerous rubs some the wrong way, hinting at a slippery slope of unchecked power.
Justice Janet Protasiewicz didn’t mince words, stating, “Wisconsin's Spills Law safeguards human health.” Well, that’s noble, but let’s not pretend this doesn’t hand regulators a pretty big stick to swing without much oversight. Where’s the line between protection and overstep?
She also declared, “We therefore reverse the court of appeals.” Bold move, but it sidesteps the question of whether businesses get a fair shake when rules aren’t set in stone. This feels like a classic case of good intentions paving a questionable road.
PFAS, for those not in the know, are a nasty bunch—chemicals that linger in the environment and the body, linked to serious health risks like cancer and reproductive issues.
They’ve plagued major cities like La Crosse and countless small towns across Wisconsin. It’s a real problem, no progressive spin needed to see that.
Justice Rebecca Dallet chimed in with, “By the time you make a rule about it, it will already have done whatever damage it did.” She’s not wrong—delays can cost lives—but rushing in without clear guidelines risks trampling on due process. Balance, anyone?
Gov. Tony Evers, ever the champion of big government solutions, crowed, “The Supreme Court’s decision today means that polluters will not have free rein.” Fair enough, Governor, but let’s not pretend this doesn’t potentially burden businesses with vague mandates—some clarity wouldn’t hurt.
Evers doubled down, calling it “a great day for Wisconsinites” in preserving natural resources. It’s hard to argue against cleaner water, but shouldn’t we also preserve a business climate where rules aren’t made on the fly? Just a thought.
The court itself wasn’t unified—one conservative justice sided with four liberals for the majority, while two conservatives, Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley, dissented. They warned this ruling lets bureaucrats slap penalties without notice or debate. That’s a red flag for anyone who values checks and balances over feel-good environmental wins.
Midwest Environmental Advocates attorney Rob Lee hailed it as “a victory for the health and wellbeing” of Wisconsinites. Cheers to health, sure, but let’s not ignore the dissenting voices worried about government creep. There’s a cost to every victory.
Lee also praised the ruling for reinforcing “a bedrock environmental and public health protection.” That’s a strong claim, but when PFAS contamination is so widespread, it’s tough to dismiss the urgency—even if the method feels like a sledgehammer approach.
At the end of the day, Wisconsin’s battle with PFAS highlights a real clash: protecting our land and water versus ensuring fair play for businesses under regulatory scrutiny.
The court’s decision leans hard into environmental action, which many will applaud, especially in communities hit by tainted wells. Still, the dissenters raise a point worth chewing on—too much power without clear rules can backfire.