WI Supreme Court Rules Workers Can Decide Where to Live

Milwaukee officials fear a flood of city workers will move to the suburbs in the wake of a state Supreme Court ruling that found police officers and other municipal employees can no longer be required to live in the cities where they work.

Those heading out of town would join the more than 800 Milwaukee employees — including some 500 police officers and firefighters — who currently live outside city limits. That's about one in five city employees.

The decision released Thursday effectively ends a long, drawn-out battle between the city and local police and firefighter unions.

Those unions celebrated the ruling as a victory for worker rights.

"Today's Supreme Court decision was both right and just," Mike Crivello, president of the Milwaukee Police Association, said in a statement. "It made clear that Wisconsin municipal employees share the same right enjoyed by all other Wisconsin citizens to reside where they desire."

Republican Gov. Scott Walker also applauded the ruling.

"This is a big win for individual freedom as city employees now have the ability to choose where they live, and it's a win for Milwaukee as it has a larger base to attract employees," Walker spokesman Tom Evenson said.

But Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a Democrat, accused the Republican-controlled Legislature and Supreme Court, which has a strong conservative majority, of a political power play.

"It is a sad day for Wisconsin," Barrett said. "Because this Supreme Court has just ripped away local control in the state of Wisconsin."

In the 5-2 ruling, the court found a 2013 law prevented the city from enforcing a long-standing rule requiring workers to live within its boundaries. The city had argued it could continue to enforce the 75-year-old residency requirement because the state constitution grants local governments broad powers.

"The Legislature has the power to legislate on matters of local affairs when its enactment uniformly affects every city or every village, notwithstanding the home rule amendment," Justice Michael Gableman wrote for the majority. "Because (the 2013 law) uniformly affects every city or village, it trumps section 5-02 of the city's charter. Milwaukee may no longer enforce its residency requirement."

Similarly, other municipalities around the state are precluded from forcing employees to live where they work.

But in a setback for the police union that sued Milwaukee, the court found it is not eligible for damages because it had not shown its members' constitutional rights were violated.

The opinion fell along ideological lines. Gableman was joined by the court's four other conservatives — Chief Justice Patience Roggensack and Justices Rebecca Bradley, David Prosser and Annette Ziegler.

In dissent were the court's two liberals, Justices Shirley Abrahamson and Ann Walsh Bradley. (The Bradleys are not related.)

The dissenters wrote that the decision would make it easier for lawmakers to meddle with the policies of a targeted city by writing laws that, at least cosmetically, appeared to apply to all local governments.

"Instead of freeing municipalities from interference by the Legislature when dealing with local affairs, the majority limits the power and restrains the ability of municipalities to self-govern," Ann Walsh Bradley wrote.

The majority stated lawmakers could set policies affecting local governments if they were for matters of statewide concern or if they affected all cities and villages uniformly, at least on their face.

On this point, Rebecca Bradley wrote separately to say she believed the Legislature could get involved in local matters only if they were both of statewide concern and affected all cities and villages uniformly. That put her in line with the liberals on that point.

Republicans who control the Legislature included a provision in the 2013 state budget prohibiting local governments from maintaining residency rules other than those requiring police and firefighters to live within 15 miles of their borders. That conflicted with Milwaukee's policy, enacted in 1938, requiring employees to live within the city.

City officials argued they could continue to enforce the policy under the "home rule" provision of the state constitution.

The Milwaukee Police Association brought a lawsuit against the city that was later joined by the Milwaukee Professional Fire Fighters Association Local 215.

The city agreed to stop enforcing the residency rule after the lawsuit was filed. Hundreds of Milwaukee employees now live outside the city. Officials had said they would have again enforced the residency rule if they prevailed before the state Supreme Court.

A Milwaukee County circuit judge in 2014 sided with the city unions and determined the state residency law trumpedthe city rule.

But last July, the 1st District Court of Appeals reinstated the city's residency rule. The appeals court decision found the 2013 law was not of statewide concern and did not affect all municipalities equally because it would have an "outsize impact" on Milwaukee because of its hit to the city's neighborhoods and economy.

The unions appealed, and the state Supreme Court agreed with them.

The unions contended residency requirements were an issue of statewide concern because lawmakers have an interest in addressing the welfare of municipal employees and make sure they are treated fairly.

"This is a victory for ALL municipal employees throughout the State of Wisconsin," the firefighters union said in a statement. "Having the opportunity to make a choice in where said employee takes residence certainly does not diminish the professionalism, service or dedication to the community."

But Barrett stressed the importance of police and firefighters being part of the community they serve, pointing to recent incidents where off-duty officers have responded to problems "because they lived in this city."

The mayor said the decision isn't about what's best for Milwaukee, but is instead a result of "one-party rule," saying that Republicans control the governor's office, Senate, Assembly and the state Supreme Court.

Barrett pointed to cities like Baltimore and Minneapolis, saying most officers there now live outside the cities they police.

"I can't have an occupying force in this city," Barrett said. "That is not good for this city, or any city."

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said Barrett has options for keeping police officers in the city, such as by providing them with financial incentives if they stay there.

"The city needs to just get more creative, as opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach," he said.

Milwaukee's deputy city attorney, Miriam Horwitz, had argued the issue was strictly local, saying each municipality had unique reasons for establishing residency requirements that vary considerably from one community to another.

The high court didn't weigh in on whether residency rules were primarily a matter of statewide or local concern, saying it didn't need to address that matter. Instead, it upheld the limits on residency requirements by concluding they applied the same to all cities and villages.

Crivello said he thinks the ruling will help the city retain officers at a time that many are becoming eligible for retirement.

The city spent about $36,000 on outside counsel in the case.

———

Visit the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel at www.jsonline.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.