A Wisconsin court has refused to toss a lawsuit challenging Attorney General Josh Kaul’s use of a Bloomberg-funded Special Assistant Attorney General (SAAG) – marking a major development in the fight over private influence inside AG offices.

On August 8, the Calumet County Circuit Court denied Kaul’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in February by state dairy groups, stating:

“Plaintiffs appear to be opposed to both how the fellow was acquired and what she will do in her role. These parties clearly have adverse interests. Plaintiffs have a legal interest to contest governmental actions leading to what they believe is an illegal expenditure of taxpayer funds.” (Emphasis added)

The ruling comes weeks after Congress launched an investigation into the billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s NYU program, which quietly embeds and pays the salaries of attorneys in state AG offices across the country.

Court Clears Path for Lawsuit

The Wisconsin Dairy Alliance and Venture Dairy Cooperative’s lawsuit contends the SAAG’s placement gives private interests undue sway over the state’s top law office:

“This case presents the question of whether the Wisconsin Department of Justice is for sale,” the plaintiffs contend. (Emphasis added)

Wisconsin Dairy Alliance president Cindy Leitner has said that the setup raises “serious questions about the influence of special interest groups on state attorneys.” The plaintiffs argue that Wisconsin’s SAAG, Karen Heineman, remains tied to the priorities of the NYU program that pays her salary, not the people of Wisconsin.

With the case now advancing, discovery could shed new light on how much influence the Bloomberg program has inside Wisconsin’s DOJ.

National Spotlight on Bloomberg’s Influence

The denied motion comes as Congress is turning its attention to the broader NYU program. In July, the House Oversight Committee opened a formal probe into NYU’s State Energy and Environmental Impact Center and Bloomberg Philanthropies, citing evidence of “partisan activism with state attorneys general.” Lawmakers are warning that the initiative blurs lines between independent state legal work and the agendas of out-of-state donors.

Bloomberg-funded fellows in other states have led high-profile climate lawsuits and coordinated closely with environmental activists, raising alarms that taxpayer-backed offices are being deployed for private policy objectives rather than the public interest (see here, here, and here). While AG Kaul has been rightfully hesitant to file a climate lawsuit against the oil and gas industry, the threat looms as activists have ramped up pressure in the state.

Bottom Line: The court’s ruling means Wisconsin taxpayers may finally get answers about who their DOJ really works for. And with Congress now digging into the broader Bloomberg-NYU program, this fight is no longer just local.

At stake is a bigger question: are attorneys general serving the people who elected them… or the billionaire benefactors paying their staff?