A construction vehicle drives down the road at Potawatomi State Park, June 15, 2026. PC: Fox 11 Online
DOOR COUNTY, WI (WTAQ-WLUK) – The DNR asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit challenging roadwork being done at Potawatomi State Park, saying the plaintiffs didn’t follow the proper procedures, and they ‘lack standing’ to file suit.
An organization known as Potawatomi Advocates for Trees, Conservation and Heritage (PATCH) filed suit, alleging the state improperly removed trees and rebuilt roads inside the state park. A judge has granted temporary restraining orders, stopping the DNR from removing any additional trees while the case progresses.
In a 34-page brief filed late Friday, the DNR asks for the case to be dismissed.
The principal problem with their claims against the State’s Department of Natural Resources (the “Department”) and its Secretary is that the claims are all barred by the State’s sovereign immunity. In the Wisconsin Constitution, the people of Wisconsin decided that “[t]he legislature shall direct by law in what manner and in what courts suits may be brought against the state.” Wis. Const. art. IV, 27. The Legislature has directed how suits against state agencies and officials may be brought—under the Administrative Procedure Act, Wis. Stat. ch. 227. PATCH didn’t follow that procedure, and instead filed this declaratory judgment action against the Department and its Secretary. Because the group failed to follow the mandatory, exclusive procedure that the Legislature adopted for claims against state agencies and officials, PATCH’s claims are barred by sovereign immunity and must be dismissed on that basis,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Gabe Johnson-Karp.
Even if the court moves beyond that issue, the state argues this group lacks the legal standing to pursue the case.
“The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the park planning regulations on which PATCH relies don’t protect the types of interests the group claims were impacted. In light of the supreme court’s precedents, PATCH lacks standing for all of its claims under the park-planning laws,” Johnson-Karp wrote.
The allegation also fail to demonstrate any violation of the park planning rules, the motion states.
As for the roadwork itself, the state says it wasn’t required to go through the plan amendment process.
“The road already meets the definition of a “moderately developed road,” and the roadwork isn’t changing that. The same goes for adding a bike lane—visitors can already bike on any of the Park’s roads, and adding a bike lane doesn’t constitute a “new facility” or new bike trail. In other words, no “plan amendment” was required because the current work is already authorized under the existing plan,” the motion states.
PATCH has not responded to the motion.
No hearings are currently scheduled.
Comments