The Legislature has argued the state’s flexible constitution, along with the fact it says “the powers, duties and compensation of the … attorney general shall be prescribed by law” mean the attorney general has no constitutional authority, and the Legislature has the final say over his or her powers.

Attorneys for the Legislature argue the state constitution would allow the Legislature to strip the attorney general of their ability to settle any cases at all, if they so wished.

Rick Esenberg, president of the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, said the case is an example of the Legislature preventing the attorney general from usurping its authority by settling litigation in ways that run counter to the Legislature’s interest.

For example, Kaul dropped the state’s appeal of a 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision declaring that federal law blocks provisions in Wisconsin’s “right-to-work” law, which prohibits companies and unions from signing contracts that would require workers to pay dues or fees to the unions that represent them.

Former Attorney General Brad Schimel, a Republican, had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case.