(The Center Square) – Wisconsin budget negotiations have reached an impasse with both sides pointing fingers at the other in Wednesday afternoon statements.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said Republican Legislative leaders backed out of negotiations after he agreed to “an income tax cut targeting Wisconsin’s middle-class and working families and eliminating income taxes for certain retirees.” He said Republican leaders would not agree to “meaningful increased investments in child care, K-12 schools, and the University of Wisconsin System.”

Republican Assembly leaders said the two sides were "far apart. Senate leaders say Evers’ desires “extend beyond what taxpayers can afford.”

“The Joint Committee on Finance will continue using our long-established practices of crafting a state budget that contains meaningful tax relief and responsible spending levels with the goal of finishing on time,” said a statement from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and Assembly Finance Co-Chairman Mark Born, R-Beaver Dam.

Evers said that there were meetings between the sides every day this week before the impasse.

“I told Republicans I’d support their half of the deal and their top tax priorities – even though they’re very similar to bills I previously vetoed – because I believe that’s how compromise is supposed to work, and I was ready to make that concession in order to get important things done for Wisconsin’s kids,” Evers said.

Senate Republican leadership said that good faith negotiations have occurred since April on a budget compromise.

“Both sides of these negotiations worked to find compromise and do what is best for the state of Wisconsin,” said a statement from Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, and Senate Joint Finance Co-Chairman Howard Marklein, R-Spring Green.

In early May, the Joint Committee on Finance took 612 items out of Gov. Tony Evers’ budget proposal, including Medicaid expansion in the state, department creations and tax exemptions.

Born previously estimated that Evers’ budget proposal would lead to $3 billion in tax increases over the two-year span.

Wisconsin Policy Forum estimated that the proposal would spend down more than $4 billion of the state’s expected $4.3 billion surplus if it is enacted.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division announced it is investigating California for violating Title IX by allowing males to participate in female student sports.

“Title IX exists to protect women and girls in education,” said Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general for Civil Rights. “It is perverse to allow males to compete against girls, invade their private spaces, and take their trophies.”

In February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning males from participating in female student sports, and he has threatened to block California's federal funding for continuing to defy his order. With California facing deficits in the tens of billions of dollars each year, it's unclear how the state would offset any losses or pauses in federal funding.

Notably, California Gov. Gavin Newsom hosted conservative pundit Charlie Kirk on his podcast and told Kirk that he thinks it’s “deeply unfair” that boys are participating in girls’ sports.

When asked later at a press conference what this means for state policy, Newsom demurred, painting the matter as a marginal, non-issue not worth his time.

“You're talking about a very small number of people, a very small number of athletes, and my responsibility is to address the pressing issues of our time,” said Newsom.

The California Interscholastic Federation, which governs student sports in California, has since responded to Trump’s threat by announcing a new pilot program to allow girls who otherwise would have qualified for sports finals had the finalist spots in girls’ sports not been taken by transgender-identifying boys to participate in said finals.

Title IX was signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1972 to ensure that schools could not discriminate against female students. It requires they be provided with equal opportunities to engage in athletics, extracurriculars and education.

DOJ’s letter of interest says it is investigating whether California’s Assembly Bill 1266, which requires transgender-identifying students to be allowed to participate in sports consistent with their gender identities, violates Title IX.

“As a result of CIF’s policy, California’s top-ranked girls’ triple jumper, and second-ranked girls’ long-jumper, is a boy,” wrote the DOJ. “As recently as May 17, this male athlete was allowed to take winning titles that rightfully belong to female athletes in both events.”

“This male athlete will now be allowed to compete against those female athletes again for a state title in long, triple, and high jump,” continued the DOJ. “Other high school female athletes have alleged that they were likewise robbed of podium positions and spots on their teams after they were forced to compete against males.”

Should the DOJ find California is in violation of Title IX, it says it will “take appropriate action to eliminate that discrimination, including seeking injunctive relief.”

In a case that could have major implications for the American public school system, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether religious charter schools, which are taxpayer-funded, are constitutional.

The St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond case involves a 2023 decision by the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board to allow St. Isidore to join the dozens of charter schools in the state.

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the charter school board, arguing that allowing St. Isidore to join the public charter school program amounts to state-sponsoring of religion.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in Drummond’s favor, but St. Isidore is arguing before the Supreme Court that contracting with the state to provide free and public education options as a privately run entity does not mean its religious activities constitute “state actions.”

Lori Windham from Becket law firm, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of St. Isidore, told The Center Square that a major question in the case is whether charter schools are closer to traditional public schools or instead function as private schools that are eligible for public funds like scholarships.

“There are already a lot of programs that taxpayers fund for things like federal student loans or federal scholarships that go to religious schools and non-religious schools alike,” Windham said. “Funds to help disabled students, funds to help schools have better security measures to prevent school shootings and hate crime – those go to religious schools and non-religious schools alike.”

“So in that way, this charter school isn't so different from lots of other programs that are out there where many different people can come in and ask to be part of that program, regardless of whether they're religious or not,” she added.

Though identifying as a Catholic school, St. Isidore accepts nonreligious students and does not require a statement of faith. Accordingly, the school also argues that an exclusion of St. Isidore from the state’s charter school program, simply because it is religious, violates the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.

“When you have a generally available program, you can't kick out religious people or religious groups just for being religious. You have to allow them to compete on the same basis as everybody else,” Windham told The Center Square. “And that's the main argument that the charter school is making here, that they're just trying to compete for that charter on the same basis as any other private group who wants to start running a school as part of that program.”

If precedent is any indication, St. Isidore has a high chance of winning the case. In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned the state of Maine’s ban on state tuition assistance to students attending religious schools.

But if SCOTUS does rule in Drummond’s favor, other areas where religious students and schools are currently receiving state funds – such as assistance for students with disabilities – could be jeopardized.

In one week, U.S. attorneys for four border states charged more than 1,220 defendants with immigration crimes.

The Trump administration is prosecuting illegal entry and illegal reentry cases in accordance with federal law. The base sentence for illegal reentry is two years in federal prison. Those with felony convictions who were previously deported face up to 10 years in prison, and those convicted with aggravated felonies face up to 20 years in federal prison.

The greatest number of illegal foreign nationals charged, nearly 600, were in Texas, followed by 329 in Arizona, 169 in California and 133 in New Mexico.

In the Southern District of Texas, 216 cases were filed from April 11 through 17. The majority, 119, face illegal entry charges; 11 involve human smuggling; 86 face felony illegal reentry charges after previously being deported, with the majority having felony narcotics, firearms or sexual offense convictions.

Juries also recently handed guilty convictions and indictments in human smuggling cases, including smuggling of children and possessing child sexual abuse material.

In the Western District of Texas, federal prosecutors filed 378 immigration-related criminal cases from April 11 through 17. Those charged also include convicted felons who were previously deported multiple times. Their convictions include lewd or lascivious acts with a child under age 14, assault causing bodily injury, DWI, possession of a controlled substance, domestic assault, aggravated assault, among others.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona charged the next greatest number of 329 over the same time period. The most were charged with illegal entry, 179, followed by 130 with illegal reentry and 18 with “smuggling illegal aliens” into Arizona.

One was charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding a Border Patrol agent. One Mexican national was arrested after refusing to register with the federal government after being arrested for driving under the influence and previously being deported five times.

Many charged were previously deported, including a Latin Kings and MS-13 transnational criminal gang member who’d been deported seven times and convicted of racketeering and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

In another case, an alleged human smuggler was charged after authorities uncovered a scheme using the Telegram phone app and burner phones to recruit alleged smugglers in the U.S. to travel to the Arizona-Mexico border to drive illegal border crossers to Phoenix. In another case, a Mexican national was arrested after illegally reentering the U.S. after he was previously deported and convicted for trafficking heroin.

The next greatest number charged, 169, were in California. The Southern District of California filed 135 border-related cases, including for “transportation of illegal aliens, bringing in aliens for financial gain, reentering the U.S. after deportation, deported alien found in the United States, and importation of controlled substances.”

Prosecutors are prioritizing charging drug and firearms offenses, drug, firearm, and human smugglers, those with serious criminal records, those with active warrants, and those who endanger and threaten the local communities and law enforcement officers, the office said.

In a separate case, four indictments were unsealed charging 16 people in San Diego County with distributing large quantities of methamphetamine, fentanyl and heroin and laundering the drug-trafficking proceeds. In a coordinated takedown, more than 115 federal, state and local law enforcement officials executed search warrants and made arrests in three San Diego neighborhoods after a 16-month investigation.

Using court-authorized wiretaps, undercover agents and confidential sources, the investigation uncovered a distribution network of drugs, including fentanyl, throughout the U.S., including in Ohio and Kansas. The San Diego County-based drug trafficking organization used shell companies to gather and launder the proceeds from other states, including Colorado, Minnesota and Nebraska, according to the indictment.

In the Central District of California criminal charges were filed against 34 defendants for illegal reentry after they’d been previously deported. Many are felons with domestic violence, unlawful sex with a minor and assault with a deadly weapon convictions, are registered sex offenders, and served prison time.

In one case, four illegal foreign nationals were charged with stealing $10,000 in cash from a victim at a gas station in East Hollywood after following the victim from a Los Angeles bank branch. Law enforcement officers engaged in a high-speed pursuit, eventually caught them even after two bailed out and fled on foot. Officers recovered the $10,000 hidden in one defendant’s underwear as well as several fake passports.

In the District of New Mexico, 133 were charged with immigration crimes. The most, 68, were charged with illegal reentry after deportation, 55 with illegal entry and 10 with “alien smuggling.” Many charged are felons convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person, aggravated driving under the influence and possession of a forgery writing/device.

“Enhanced enforcement both at the border and in the interior of the district have yielded aliens engaged in unlawful activity or with serious criminal history, including human trafficking, sexual assault and violence against children,” the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico said.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin taxpayers will see a tax increase of, on average, $2,229 per filer if the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expires Jan. 1, according to a new report from the National Taxpayers Union.

If the bill expires, it would increase taxes for 80% of Americans, the report says.

The largest tax increases would hit people in Massachusetts ($4,848 annual tax increase), Washington ($4,567) and California ($3,768).

If the cuts are extended, it is projected to cost the federal government about $4 trillion in revenue.

If the legislation expires, it will cut in half the federal standard deduction, reduce child tax credits, reintroduce higher federal tax brackets and lower the threshold for federal estate taxes while cutting several business tax benefits.

“Wisconsin does not adopt full expensing business investments,” the report says. “State policymakers could adopt 100% full expensing regardless of whether federal full expensing is renewed.”

If the cuts expire, individual and business taxes would go up $500 billion each year while reducing the federal gross domestic product 1.1% and wages by 0.5%, the report says.