By of the

Madison — A state law to sharply curb union bargaining by public employees is not in effect, a Dane County judge ruled Thursday, continuing the turmoil over a measure that sparked massive protests and prompted Democrats to boycott the Senate for three weeks.

Gov. Scott Walker's administration said it would comply with the order by halting its implementation of the law.

A hearing in the case is slated for 8:30 a.m. Friday, and at that point Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi could rule on a request for a preliminary injunction that would block the law until she can determine whether lawmakers properly adopted the law.

"Based on the briefs of counsel, the uncontroverted testimony, and the evidence received at the March 29, 2011, evidentiary hearing, it is hereby DECLARED that 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 has not been published within the meaning of (state statutes), and is therefore not in effect," Sumi wrote in her terse order issued Thursday.

On Tuesday, Sumi had reiterated an earlier order that Secretary of State Doug La Follette was barred from designating a date to publish the law and said no steps should be taken to implement the law. But at that Tuesday hearing, she declined to issue a declaration that the law had not yet been published.

For nearly a week, attorneys and state officials have disagreed over whether the law was in effect. That's because late last week the Legislative Reference Bureau - which was not named in the restraining orders - published the law on the Legislature's website.

The law has been challenged by Democratic Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, who says Republicans who run the Legislature violated the state's open meetings law when a committee was quickly convened to advance the bill to the Senate.

Walker and his aides said the administration had put the law on hold for now.

"The bottom line is we're going to comply with the court order with our hope that once this is all sorted out we'll see the law is in effect," Walker told reporters during a stop at HOPE Christian School: Prima in Milwaukee.

He said Thursday's decision was the first time the judge had clearly put in writing that the law applied to the administration.

The state Department of Justice expects issues raised in the case will ultimately be decided by a higher court, said a statement from department spokesman Bill Cosh.

"Today's order is issued over our objections, and we do not believe that it is proper," he said.

La Follette, a Democrat, welcomed the decision.

"I am pleased that now we have a clear statement that the law is not in effect and that we have to straighten this out," he said.

Democrats said they were dismayed it took three court orders over two weeks before Walker backed off on implementing the law.

"Perhaps Judge Sumi's third court order was the charm for Scott Walker," said a statement from state Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate.

But Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) called the order "judicial activism at its worst."

"Once again, one Dane County judge is doing everything she can to stand in the way of our efforts to improve the economy and create jobs," he said in a statement.

No second vote planned

Lawmakers have the option of passing the bill again, but spokesmen for Fitzgerald and his brother, Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon), said they would not do that on Tuesday, when the two houses next meet. Legislators are considering a separate bill that day to restructure debt to close a deficit that runs through June 30.

Republicans are reluctant to take up the collective bargaining measure again for reasons both political and pragmatic. Fundamentally, they believe they acted properly and that courts can't interfere with how they operate. Also, they are not eager to take up a bill that drew tens of thousands of protesters to the Capitol for weeks and forced Republicans in tight districts to take a tough vote - especially now that efforts are under way to recall eight Republicans and eight Democrats in the Senate.

Republican leaders also know even if they pass the law again, they will face legal challenges. Two other lawsuits have already been filed, and others are expected.

Sumi's latest order is in sharp contrast to what she said two days earlier in court. Then, Ozanne asked her to issue an order declaring the law was not in effect, but Sumi declined to do so.

"That is yet to be determined," she said Tuesday. "I hesitate to do that at this point because testimony is not closed and argument is not closed."

No testimony has been taken since Sumi said that, and Sumi's order gave no explanation of why she had decided to rule now.

Howard Schweber, a University of Wisconsin-Madison law professor, was not surprised by Sumi's order.

"After the testimony that has already been received it was very clear that the attorney general's office didn't have a legal leg to stand on," he said. "I don't doubt the judge was going to rule this way based on the testimony. My suspicion is she planned to issue this ruling as part of an injunction on Friday. Then she woke up this morning and saw the paper and decided not to wait."

Richard Esenberg, a Marquette University Law School professor, disagreed with the judge's decision.

"It's hard for me to talk about this without returning to the fundamental point that she should not be enjoining the publication of the law in the first place," he said. "She doesn't have the authority to do that.

"Beyond that, I disagree with respect to whether the law has been published and has become effective."

Savings on hold

Under the legislation, most public employee unions could collectively bargain over wages but nothing else, leaving management alone to determine health benefits, vacation and sick leave. Wage increases would be capped at inflation, unless bigger raises were approved in a referendum.

The proposal has brought national attention to Wisconsin, and Republicans in other states are now pushing through similar plans.

The law also requires workers to pay more for health care and their pensions to help close a budget shortfall. With the restraining order in effect, the state for now can't capture those savings.

Walker introduced the plan in February and quickly faced huge protests. The Senate Democrats left the state Feb. 17, leaving Republicans without a quorum. The state constitution requires 20 of 33 senators to be present to approve measures that include certain fiscal elements.

After three weeks, on March 9, the Republicans quickly formed a committee with leaders from both houses that stripped the appropriations out of the bill. Minutes later, the Senate passed the bill with all Democrats absent.

Once Walker signed the law, Ozanne filed his civil complaint, saying the committee violated the open meetings law because it did not provide adequate public notice of the meeting and because access to the Capitol was limited by law enforcement. Republicans say they didn't violate the meetings law.

Sumi on March 18 issued a temporary restraining order barring La Follette from taking any steps to publish the law. But on Friday, the reference bureau published it on the Legislature's website.

Earlier, La Follette had named a date for the law to be published, but he rescinded it after Sumi issued her restraining order. Republicans argue La Follette didn't have the power to rescind the publication date.

Under state law, La Follette is responsible for designating a publication date and printing a notice of the law in the official state newspaper, the Wisconsin State Journal. The reference bureau puts the law online and arranges the printing of paper copies of the law.

Walker's administration on Monday said it was implementing the law because it had been published by the reference bureau. On Tuesday, Sumi said she had been clear that the law was not to be implemented and issued a new restraining order.

Attorneys for the state said they believed the law was still in effect and Sumi's order did not cover Walker's administration because it is not named in the case. Then, in her order Thursday, Sumi declared the law is not in effect.

After Sumi issued her original restraining order, the Department of Justice appealed. The appeals court said the state Supreme Court could take the case because of conflicting past decisions.

The department argued in the appeal that Sumi is unable to rule in the case before it has been published because that would interfere with the operations of the Legislature, a separate branch of government.

The department at the time was representing La Follette, but he secured new counsel this week because he believed he had a conflict with the department.

That left the Department of Justice without a client that can appear in court because the lawmakers it represents are immune from civil actions during the legislative session. The department has tried repeatedly to stop the proceedings because of that immunity, and that issue is expected to be raised on appeal.

"The way this has proceeded has been very unusual," said Assistant Attorney General Steven Means.

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether it will take the case. The case has come to the court as collective bargaining has taken a large role in a race for a seat on the court.

Justice David Prosser is being challenged by Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg in Tuesday's election.

Also on the ballot Tuesday is Sumi, but she faces no opposition. Sumi was first appointed to the bench in 1998 by Republican Gov. Tommy G. Thompson.

Amy Hetzner and Lee Bergquist of the Journal Sentinel staff, reporting from Milwaukee, contributed to this report.