From the 36K-word decision in Laffery v. Pertl, by Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge Maria Lazar, joined in part by Judges Lisa Neubauer and Mark Gundrum:
Appellants and foster parents, Brian and Katie Lafferty appeal the circuit court's order on cross-motions for summary judgment executed in favor of respondents Jeff Pertl and Julie Driscoll as well as the court's decision and order denying the Laffertys' motion for a protective order. The Laffertys have been seeking to exercise their state and federal constitutional rights for five years while the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families (DCF) and Washington County Human Services Department (the County) have dithered, moved the goal posts, and changed the rules of the game every step along the way.
The Laffertys' current appeal challenges several regulations … regarding the renewal of their foster home license, which they contend are facially unconstitutional. In 2020, Washington County began to require compliance with additional restrictions before a license could be renewed, including: (1) a storage requirement that mandated firearms be stored, in a location not readily accessible to children, locked and unloaded in the home and in a separate location from ammunition; (2) a carry ban that prohibited a foster parent with a conceal carry license from carrying a weapon in the presence of foster children; and (3) a disclosure requirement that mandated foster parents must list all firearms currently (and some formerly) owned, and to identify their locations and the separate location of ammunition. The Laffertys assert that the circuit court erroneously granted summary judgment against them on procedural grounds, and that the various rules and regulations imposed upon them by the County and/or the DCF violate their federal and state constitutional Second Amendment rights.
The DCF disputes all of the Laffertys' arguments and further asserts the Laffertys waived their Second Amendment challenges when they sought to become foster parents. Due to the complexity of the issues presented, in mid-December 2025, we set the matter for an oral argument to be held in February 2026. Seven days before that argument, DCF's counsel wrote to advise this court that the administrative rule at issue had been amended three months earlier, effective December 1, 2025. The DCF asserted the appeal was now moot.
We immediately cancelled the oral argument and ordered supplemental briefing to determine what issues, if any, remained for this court to resolve. The Laffertys assert the rule amendment does not render this appeal moot and that their rights were and are still being violated. The DCF asserts that there is at least one issue that requires our resolution. We agree that viable issues remain before this court; therefore, this appeal is not moot.
As to the merits presently before us, we conclude the Laffertys did not waive their constitutional rights by volunteering to serve as foster parents. We further conclude the disclosure requirement and discovery demands were overly broad and impermissible. However, we also conclude the most recent rule change eliminates some of the Laffertys' complaints, especially with respect to concealed carry and storage requirements. We also conclude the requirement that foster parents' firearms be stored unloaded as a condition of obtaining a foster parent license violates both the federal and state constitutions and must be struck from the administrative rule.
Finally, we conclude the DCF's belated notice to this court of the administrative rule change, mid-stream and mere days before the oral argument date, raises serious concerns that we address below….
