Law Forward stands ready, with Governor Evers and all of Wisconsin’s elected officials and state workers, to defend against politically motivated retaliation and to uphold the rule of law. Our democracy depends on it. /end

Threats to silence, intimidate, and even incarcerate perceived political enemies cannot go unanswered, lest they metastasize into unconstitutional actions. This is especially true when those threats emanate from the White House. 8/9

Law Forward exists to defend and advance the rule of law on which our democracy depends. We commend Governor Evers for his leadership and his clear, calm commitment. We proudly joined an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie, and we celebrate the court’s order. 7/9

The court reaffirmed longstanding, core American principles, including that the federal constitution protects the right of everyone in our country to consult an attorney and the right of all attorneys to give independent legal advice, free from government interference. 6/9

Hours after Governor Evers stood up for the rule of law, a federal court in Washington, DC did the same, permanently blocking Executive Order 14230, in which President Trump targeted law firm Perkins Coie LLP. 5/9

instructions the Governor sent to Wisconsin state workers about consulting in-house legal counsel if federal immigration officials make demands at state facilities. Governor Evers explained that the rule of law remains paramount even in moments of intimidation, fear, or shows of force. 4/9

Yesterday, two developments cast this fundamental commitment in stark relief. Here in Wisconsin, Governor Tony Evers stood calm and steadfast in response to implicit but undeniable threats from Trump Administration official Tom Homan, who made those threats in response to common-sense 3/9

Wisconsinites live in a nation, and a state, defined by the rule of law. When we have disputes—whether they arise between private interests, between government actors and a private interest, or between two government actors—we resolve them by recourse to law. 2/9

Gableman's attorney is, no later than April 1, to provide OLR with three 2-day periods between now and April 15 on which Gableman is available for deposition. "He needs to appear." No party had any questions, and the Referee said he will be issuing an order in the coming days.

The Referee is giving Gableman one more opportunity to appear for deposition. And the Referee will be available to work through any disagreements about the application of the Fifth Amendment to individual questions.

[After discussion to surmount some technical difficulties, the Referee continued.] He explains that Fifth Amendment claims must be made on a question-by-question basis and it was improper for Gableman to refuse to appear at all b/c a question might implicate the Fifth Amendment.

The Referee says there is no need for OLR to respond, because he is prepared to rule. He begins by noting that OLR's motion papers correctly present the relevant law.

He acknowledges that invoking the Fifth Amendment (against self-incrimination) has consequences.

Gableman's lawyer notes that and "other clients of my firm are being criminally prosecuted due to the efforts of @lawfwd.bsky.social" (He's referring to Jim Troupis.)

Gableman's lawyer concedes that the emails placed on the record by OLR are accurate. He says that he has acted in good faith. He notes that this "is not a run of the mill attorney disciplinary case."