MADISON - Fifteen people appointed by former Gov. Scott Walker are back in their state positions following a decision Tuesday by the state Supreme Court in a lawsuit challenging action taken by Republican lawmakers to limit the power of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

The order to restore the appointments comes as the state's highest court considers lawsuits filed by the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and others over action taken in December by the GOP lawmakers to shift away powers from Evers and Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul before they took office.

Evers' spokeswoman Melissa Baldauff said Evers is "confident that the court will ultimately rule against the Legislature's unconstitutional attempt to override the will of the people" despite Tuesday's decision.

Tuesday's 4-3 order was issued by a split court, with all conservatives in the majority and all liberals in dissent.

RELATED:Lame-duck scorecard: Where the cases stand in the fight over GOP laws limiting Wisconsin governor

The 15 appointments are part of a group of 82 confirmed by the state Senate during the December legislative session and later vacated by a Dane County circuit judge who ruled the action unconstitutional and threw out all the laws and Senate confirmations of the appointments.

Although a small part of the action, the appointments came under scrutiny in March when Evers revoked those appointments but put 67 of the 82 people back into the same jobs, leaving 15 appointees out of their jobs. One of those appointees, Public Service Commissioner Ellen Nowak, was blocked from stepping onto an elevator to return to her job at the commission.

"I’m pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision and look forward to returning to the commission," she said Tuesday.

The circuit court's ruling "gave rise to the potential confusion that would ensue if the Governor nominated new individuals to the positions at issue, thereby creating a situation where two people would both claim a right to the same position," the court's conservatives wrote.

Many of the appointments were to low-level positions, but Evers left vacant the most significant ones, including those to the Public Service Commission and the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents.

"Governor Evers’ actions targeted public servants who are dedicated to working on behalf of Wisconsin citizens," Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, said in a statement. "I’m glad to see that the Supreme Court has ended this unnecessary constitutional crisis and enforced the return of these individuals to their rightful positions.”

The court has scheduled arguments for May 15 in the underlying case to determine whether to ultimately uphold the lame-duck laws and appointments.

In the majority in Tuesday's order were the court’s conservatives — Chief Justice Patience Roggensack and Justices Rebecca Bradley, Daniel Kelly and Annette Ziegler. In dissent were the court’s liberals — Justices Shirley Abrahamson, Ann Walsh Bradley and Rebecca Dallet. (The Bradleys are not related.)

The lawsuit alleges the type of legislative session used to pass the laws — known as an extraordinary session — isn't actually allowed under the state law and the state constitution despite lawmakers calling them for decades.

Republicans passed the lame-duck laws after Evers and Kaul won their elections but before they were sworn in. The laws barred Kaul from settling lawsuits without the approval of lawmakers, limited Evers' control of the state's economic development agency and prevented Evers from making changes to public benefits programs without their approval.

During the same session, senators approved the 82 appointees by Walker. Those appointees had already been serving in their jobs and the Senate confirmation was aimed at preventing Evers from pushing them out of their jobs.

In their order restoring the appointments, the justices said their action does not express a position "as to whether or not any of the Legislature's arguments will ultimately prevail."

"We cannot say, however, that the Legislature's arguments have 'no likelihood of success on the merits,' as the circuit court did," the majority wrote.

The court's majority also wrote that Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess, in vacating the appointments, "completely ignored the harm that would result" from refusing to stay the ruling and that the public would have suffered "irreparable harm" if the positions on state boards and commissions continued to remain vacant under uncertainty.

The dissenters took issue with that claim.

“But what about the harm that results from a potentially unconstitutional law remaining in effect?" Ann Walsh Bradley wrote for the minority. "The harm wrought by subjecting the people of Wisconsin to potentially unconstitutional ‘laws’ should be, but apparently is not, worthy of the court’s consideration.”

The dissenters also scolded the majority for basing its decision on an argument the lawmakers had not made. That approach "blindsides the parties and deprives them of notice and the opportunity to be heard," Bradley wrote.

Patrick Marley of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this report.

Contact Molly Beck in the Capitol bureau at (608) 258-2263 or at molly.beck@jrn.com. Follow her on Twitter at @MollyBeck.