The Wisconsin supreme court is set to hear arguments Wednesday in a case brought by Governor Evers, in which he argues legislators violated the Constitution by refusing to perform basic government functions as part of their crusade against diversity and inclusion policies at universities.

In the suit, the executive branch, led by Mr. Evers, is challenging the legislature’s use of a “legislative veto,” and specifically the use of so-called committee vetoes.

Cornell Law School defines a legislative veto as “a provision that allows a congressional resolution (passed by a majority of Congress, but not signed by the President) to nullify a rulemaking or other action taken by an executive agency.”

While there are 18 states with legislative vetoes, in Wisconsin there is a special type of legislative veto called a “committee veto.” These allow a single legislative committee to reject or modify a rule made by a government agency by a simple majority vote.

The committee veto system in Wisconsin thus empowers a relatively small number of state legislators to obstruct the function of government agencies and the execution of state laws. In this case, attorneys for Mr. Evers’s office argue that this power is unconstitutional.

“These unconstitutional legislative committee vetoes have led to exigent harms, including indefinite program delays, unpaid wages, and failures to achieve modern building standards,” attorneys for Mr. Evers write.

At issue in the case are three specific instances of committee vetoes in which legislators blocked conservation projects, statutory pay raises for educational employees, and rules updates for building standards and ethics standards for social workers.

In each of these cases, according to Wisconsin’s attorney general, Josh Kaul, the legislature is violating the separation of powers in the state constitution.

“That principle, which guards against the concentration of governmental power, is inconsistent with permitting legislative committees to exercise a veto over executive branch actions like DNR’s awarding of funds for conservation projects,” Mr. Kaul says.

While the court’s liberal majority agreed to take up the case, conservatives on the court argued against considering the lawsuit and said that the case was only being brought now because of the court’s liberal majority.

“When the majority’s political allies say jump, the new majority responds: ‘How high?’” Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote. “The timing is no coincidence; the Governor knows he has a friendly foursome standing by to do his bidding.”

One of the court’s liberal justices, Ann Walsh Bradley, recently announced that she would not seek another term, meaning the majority will be up for grabs in 2025.

Another conservative justice, Justice Brian Hagedorn, said that the court should not take up the case, saying it “raises substantial questions about the proper roles of the executive and legislative branches.”

“A decision in this case could occasion a historic shift—both in the operation of state government, and in how this court interprets the boundary lines between the branches of government,” Justice Hagedorn wrote.

The “substantial quotations” about the function of state government are probably best illustrated by the first example provided by the governor’s office — one committee’s decision to deny raises for University of Wisconsin employees.

In the state’s 2023 to 2025 budget, lawmakers approved raises for employees of the University of Wisconsin system, and those pay raises were subsequently signed into law by the governor in July.

In October, though, the state’s Joint Committee on Employee Relations — a committee made up of just eight members — voted to block raises already passed into law for about 35,000 university employees while allowing other government employees to receive the raises approved in the budget. The committee demanded cuts to diversity and inclusion programs.

In a statement, the University of Wisconsin president, Jay Rothman, lamented faculty and staff being denied pay raises, saying that “the less we are subject to ongoing political disputes, the better we can do our job.”

“I am deeply troubled by our faculty and staff being stuck in the middle of this dispute,” Mr. Rothman said. “While it is not our lawsuit, it’s time for this whole ordeal that is blocking pay for our employees to come to an end.”

In reaction to Mr. Evers filing the suit in the fall, the speaker of the Wisconsin state assembly, Robin Vos, accused Mr. Evers of attempting to take away the raises that the legislature had approved for all state employees.

“In a time of unprecedented inflation brought on by reckless Democrat spending, we think it is abhorrent that the Governor would try and take away lawfully approved money for hardworking state employees,” Mr. Vos said in a statement.

Legal scholars have pointed out that Wisconsin is an outlier in regard to its committee veto, and that in the 20 states where legislative vetoes have been challenged on a constitutional basis, the courts have rejected the practice with “virtual unanimity.”

“These opinions hold that legislative vetoes usurp the executive power to spend appropriated funds,” attorneys Miriam Seifter and Bryna Godar wrote in an amicus brief submitted by the State Democracy Research Initiative. “A recurring concern in these decisions is the anti-democratic nature of supercharged legislative committees.”