Dunn v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin is a constitutional climate lawsuit brought in August 2025 by fifteen Wisconsin children and teenagers, ages eight to seventeen, who argue that state laws forcing the Public Service Commission to ignore climate pollution and capping renewable energy requirements violate their rights under the Wisconsin Constitution. A Dane County Circuit Court judge dismissed the case in April 2026 as a nonjusticiable political question. The plaintiffs appealed in May 2026, and the case is now pending before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV.
The Statutes the Plaintiffs Want Struck Down
The suit targets three provisions of Wisconsin law that, together, the plaintiffs say lock the state into a fossil-fuel electricity sector.
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)3 prohibits the PSC from finding that a proposed fossil fuel facility is not in the public interest based on its air pollution impact, so long as the facility meets the requirements of Chapter 285, the state’s air quality standards. The practical effect is that the PSC cannot deny a gas or coal plant permit because of greenhouse gas emissions or climate impact.
Wis. Stat. § 196.378 sets Wisconsin’s renewable portfolio standard. It required electric providers to reach a renewable percentage roughly six points above their early-2000s baseline by 2015, a target utilities met in 2013 and that has not been updated. The plaintiffs argue it functions as a ceiling: the PSC cannot compel utilities to go beyond it, even though every major investor-owned utility in the state has voluntarily pledged carbon-free electricity by 2050.
Wis. Stat. § 196.025(1)(c)1 is cited as reinforcing those limits on PSC authority.
The Constitutional Theory
Wisconsin’s constitution does not contain an explicit right to a clean and healthy environment, which sets this case apart from the Montana and Hawaii youth climate cases that have won in recent years. The plaintiffs are asking courts to read climate protection into two existing provisions.
The first is Article I, Section 1, which guarantees the inherent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The plaintiffs argue those protections encompass rights to health, safety, bodily integrity, and a stable climate system. The second is Article IX, Section 1, Wisconsin’s public trust doctrine, under which the state holds navigable waters in trust for the public. The plaintiffs contend that climate change driven by fossil fuel pollution is degrading Wisconsin’s lakes, rivers, and wetlands in violation of that constitutional duty.
If the theory succeeds on appeal, it would establish that traditional guarantees of life, liberty, and public trust can independently compel state action on climate, a holding with reach beyond Wisconsin.
Who the Plaintiffs Are
The fifteen plaintiffs are identified by first name only in court filings: Kaarina, Caroline, Tyler, Waazakone, Mukademigwan, Gookoonz, Lucy, Madeleine, Bella, Ted, Charlie, Elia, Alex, Simon, and Indy. Lead plaintiff Kaarina Dunn is a teenager from La Crosse County whose family was forced to relocate after a boulder was dislodged by climate-driven freeze-thaw cycles. Other plaintiffs include Indigenous youth from the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians who describe the decline of cold-water fisheries such as walleye, and children from farming families who report damage from extreme rain and drought cycles.
They are represented by Our Children’s Trust, the national nonprofit behind Held v. Montana, with lead attorney Nate Bellinger, and by Wisconsin-based Midwest Environmental Advocates through Executive Director Tony Wilkin Gibart and attorney Skylar Harris. The named defendants are the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and the Wisconsin State Legislature.
Why the Circuit Court Dismissed the Case
On April 23, 2026, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Julie Genovese granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss in a 35-page order. She ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims raised nonjusticiable political questions under the framework from Baker v. Carr, concluding that the Wisconsin Constitution vests energy policy in the legislature and that the court lacked a “judicially manageable standard” to address the plaintiffs’ air pollution and renewable energy goals. Granting the requested relief, she wrote, “would show a blatant lack of respect for our elected officials and the agency defendants.”
The defendants had raised four grounds for dismissal: the political question doctrine, lack of standing, sovereign immunity, and failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs had argued in response that Wisconsin’s standing requirements are liberal, that the state constitution protects broad inherent rights the courts can enforce, and that they were asking the court to strike specific statutes rather than order open-ended policy change.
The Appeal and What Happens Next
The plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on May 28, 2026, to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV. As of mid-2026, they are preparing their appellate briefs, and the case remains open.
Bellinger framed the appeal around judicial authority: “Courts exist to protect people from unconstitutional government conduct — especially children, and especially when the harm is real and ongoing. The political question doctrine does not shield unconstitutional laws from judicial review, and it does not apply here.”
Wilkin Gibart said “this case is about constitutional rights, not political questions,” and that the challenged laws “are contributing to climate change and causing real, concrete harm to our clients” in violation of the Wisconsin Constitution.
The appellate court will decide whether Judge Genovese correctly treated the plaintiffs’ claims as political questions or whether Wisconsin courts can review whether these specific statutes conflict with the state constitution’s guarantees of life, liberty, and the public trust.