The Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed an original action filed by Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin against District Attorney Joel Urmanski on July 2, 2025, exactly one year after initially granting the organization's petition to commence the legal challenge.
In a brief order, the court stated that given its decision in *Kaul v. Urmanski* (2025 WI 32), which was also released on July 2, 2025, it had concluded that the Planned Parenthood original action should be dismissed. The court ordered that all pending motions and proposed stipulations in the case be dismissed as moot.
The dismissal represents the end of a legal challenge that began when Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and other petitioners sought permission from the state's highest court to file an original action against Urmanski and other respondents. Original actions allow parties to bring cases directly to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, bypassing lower courts, typically in matters of statewide importance or when the court's original jurisdiction is appropriate.
The court had granted Planned Parenthood's petition for leave to commence the original action on July 2, 2024. However, the concurrent release of the *Kaul* decision appears to have resolved the legal issues that prompted the Planned Parenthood case, making the continuation of that litigation unnecessary.
Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler issued a statement regarding the dismissal, joined by Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley. In her statement, Ziegler expressed agreement with the court's decision to dismiss the case but criticized the initial decision to grant the original action petition.
"I agree with the court that this case does not belong before us," Ziegler wrote. "The original action petition should not have been granted in the first place, as explained by the dissents to the order granting the original action petition."
Ziegler referenced dissenting opinions from Justices Rebecca Grassl Bradley and Brian Hagedorn when the court initially granted Planned Parenthood's petition in July 2024. Those dissents, which were reprinted with the dismissal order, had argued against allowing the original action to proceed.
The justice also criticized what she characterized as inconsistency in the court's approach to providing reasoning for case dismissals. "It is interesting that the court appears to pick and choose when to provide reasoning for dismissing a case," Ziegler wrote. "Sometimes it says nothing."
Ziegler cited *Van Oudenhoven v. DOJ* as an example of a case where the court provided no reasoning for dismissal, suggesting a pattern of inconsistent explanations for similar judicial actions.
The dismissal order provides limited details about the underlying legal issues that prompted the original Planned Parenthood challenge. The case caption indicates that multiple parties were involved as both petitioners alongside Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and as respondents alongside Urmanski.
The timing of the dismissal, coming exactly one year after the petition was granted, suggests the court may have been waiting for the resolution of related legal questions addressed in the *Kaul v. Urmanski* case. The *Kaul* decision, also involving District Attorney Urmanski, appears to have established precedent or resolved legal principles that made the Planned Parenthood case unnecessary.
Original actions in state supreme courts are relatively rare procedural vehicles, typically reserved for cases involving disputes between state entities, challenges to state laws or regulations, or matters where the court's immediate attention is warranted due to statewide implications. The fact that Planned Parenthood sought this procedural route suggests the underlying legal challenge involved significant policy questions or constitutional issues.
The dismissal effectively ends the legal proceedings without reaching the merits of Planned Parenthood's claims against Urmanski. Since the case was dismissed rather than decided on substantive grounds, it does not create binding precedent on the underlying legal issues that prompted the litigation.
The order's reference to dismissing "all pending motions and the proposed stipulation as moot" indicates that the parties had been actively litigating procedural matters and potentially negotiating resolution terms before the court decided to dismiss the entire action.
The concurrent release of both the *Kaul v. Urmanski* decision and the Planned Parenthood dismissal suggests coordinated judicial decision-making, with the court likely determining that the *Kaul* ruling addressed the same legal principles at issue in the Planned Parenthood case, making continued litigation redundant.
This dismissal represents another chapter in ongoing legal disputes involving District Attorney Urmanski, whose office appears to have been the subject of multiple legal challenges that reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court during the same time period.