Story · April 8, 2021

Milwaukee County officials join fee bid in Trump election case

Fee bill comes due Confidence 5/5
★★★☆☆Fuckup rating 3/5
Major mess Ranked from 1 to 5 stars based on the scale of the screwup and fallout.
Correction: Milwaukee County filed a motion asking for fees; it did not win them on April 8. The related state and federal appeals had already been resolved before this filing.

Milwaukee County officials on April 8, 2021, asked a federal judge to make Donald Trump and his lawyers pay about $145,000 in legal fees tied to the failed Wisconsin election lawsuit. George L. Christenson, the county clerk, and Julietta Henry, the county elections director, filed the motion in support of the broader fee request already made by Gov. Tony Evers and other defendants.

The filing said the county had to defend against claims that lacked any real factual or legal foundation and asked the court to impose fees under federal sanctions rules and its inherent authority. It also argued that Trump and his attorneys should be responsible for the costs of what the county described as needless litigation.

The underlying federal case had already moved quickly by that point. Trump filed the challenge in December 2020, a judge dismissed it days later, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court later declined to take it up. The April 8 motion did not reopen the merits of the case; it sought to shift the cost of defending it.

Christenson and Henry said the lawsuit forced county lawyers into an expedited response and multiple rounds of briefing. Their motion asked the court to hold Trump and his legal team jointly responsible for the bill. The judge had not yet ruled on the request.

Proof attached

Sources used for this report

These are the source links stored with this report when it was published. Open them directly to inspect the underlying reporting or primary document.

Reader action

Follow the court record

Read the filed complaint, order, or opinion and follow the docket as the case develops. Share the primary documents when explaining what the court has—and has not—decided.

This card only appears on stories where there is a concrete, lawful, worthwhile step a reader can actually take.

Comments

Threaded replies, voting, and reports are live. New users still go through screening on their first approved comments.

Log in to comment


No comments yet. Be the first reasonably on-topic person here.