Case: 1:20-cv-02658 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:251
`Troutman Sanders LLP
`
`227 West Monroe Street, Suite 3900
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`troutman.com
`
`Misha Tseytlin
`misha.tseytlin@troutman.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`June 29, 2020
`
`VIA ECF FILING
`
`The Honorable Gary S. Feinerman
`Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse
`219 South Dearborn Street, Room 2146
`Chicago, IL 60604
`
`Re: United States of America, et al. v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., et al. (No. 1:20-
`cv-2658)
`
`Dear Judge Feinerman:
`
`I am counsel for Legislative Petitioners, * in Vos v Kaul, No. 19AP1389-OA (Wis.), a case
`implicated by the June 17, 2020 letter from Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Gwendolyn J.
`Cooley in the above-referenced case. See Dkt. 28.
`
`On August 1, 2019, Legislative Petitioners filed a Petition For Original Action in Vos with the
`Wisconsin Supreme Court, asking the Court to adjudicate the legality of the Wisconsin Attorney
`General’s ongoing violation of 2017 Wisconsin Act 369. On September 12, 2019, the Court held
`this Petition in abeyance, pending further order of the Court and the oral argument in Service
`Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 1 v. Vos, Nos. 19AP614-LV, 19AP622 (Wis.), a case
`involving a facial challenge to certain provisions of Act 369 and 2017 Wisconsin Act 370. The
`Wisconsin Supreme Court thereafter held oral argument in SEIU on October 21, 2019, and a final
`decision could come at any time, including before the end of June.
`
`As reflected in the briefing attached as Exhibit 1 to this letter, the Legislature strongly disagrees
`with the Wisconsin Attorney General’s interpretation of Section 26 of Act 369, codified at Wis.
`Stat. § 165.08(1). Section 26 provides that “[a]ny civil action prosecuted by the [D]epartment [of
`Justice] . . . may be compromised or discontinued” only with the Legislature’s approval, as
`intervenor, or, if there is no intervenor, with the approval of the Joint Committee on Finance
`(“JFC”). Wis. Stat. § 165.08(1) (emphases added). A “civil action” is “[a]n action brought to
`enforce, redress, or protect a private or civil right; a noncriminal litigation,” Action, Black’s Law
`Dictionary (11th ed. 2019), and “prosecute” means “[t]o commence and carry out (a legal action),”
`Prosecute, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). So, when the Wisconsin Attorney General
`commences and carries out a civil action by choosing to file a civil complaint, as he has here, he
`must thereafter obtain legislative approval under Section 26 if he wishes to compromise that
`
`
`* Robin Vos, in his official capacity as Wisconsin Assembly Speaker, Roger Roth, in his official capacity as
`Wisconsin Senate President, Jim Steineke, in his official capacity as Wisconsin Assembly Majority Leader,
`and Scott Fitzgerald, in his official capacity as Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader.
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02658 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:252
`
`The Honorable Gary S. Feinerman
`June 29, 2020
`Page 2
`
`action, such as through a consent decree. Nothing in Section 26’s text alters or eliminates these
`obligations simply because there has been some manner of pre-filing negotiations between the
`parties, or because the Attorney General has acted under Wis. Stat. § 133.17(1).
`
`The Legislature has sought to have the Wisconsin Supreme Court resolve this legal issue through
`a Petition for Original Action in Vos, including to avoid embroiling third parties in this purely legal
`dispute. That Court has not yet ruled on the Legislature’s Petition, but may well do so soon. In
`light of that state of affairs, the Legislature respectfully submits that this Court could stay this case
`until the Wisconsin Supreme Court acts on the Legislature’s Vos Petition. Alternatively, if this
`Court concludes that review of this settlement cannot wait until resolution of the Vos Petition, this
`Court should resolve this legal issue. If this Court decides to take that approach, the Legislature
`would be happy to submit an amicus brief on this issue. Having said that, the Legislature believes
`that the Wisconsin Attorney General’s position here is so clearly foreclosed by the statutory text
`that this Court could reject that position by simply reviewing the legal arguments that the
`Legislature articulated in its Petition in Vos. See Ex. 1 at 21–24.
`
`Of course, the Wisconsin Attorney General’s decision to put this Court in this unfortunate position
`can—and should—be avoided by him simply following the plain requirements of Wisconsin law.
`If the Wisconsin Attorney General would simply submit this settlement to JFC for its approval, the
`JFC would consider this settlement promptly. Indeed, on June 16, 2020, the JFC recently and
`unanimously approved multiple settlements that the Wisconsin Attorney General submitted.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s/ Misha Tseytlin
`
`Misha Tseytlin
`
`cc:
`
`Counsel of record via ECF
`
`