Wisconsin Supreme Court rules that sidewalks are not “pedestrian-only streets”

Courts sometimes adopt highly counterintuitive interpretations of language. In 2022, a California court infamously ruled that honeybees are fish. Today, Sogen Homer vs. Egg Harbor VillageIn 1960, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that sidewalks are not “pedestrian streets,” allowing local governments to use eminent domain to build sidewalks, despite state law prohibiting the use of eminent domain to take land for “pedestrian streets.”[s]The narrow 4-3 decision may become a staple of law school textbooks.

It might seem obvious that a sidewalk is a pedestrian-only road. In fact, as the Court noted, the relevant statute defines a “pedestrian-only road” as “a walkway designated for the passage of pedestrians.”
“Pedestrian traffic” apparently includes sidewalks. You don’t have to be a real estate guru like me to figure that out.

However, the majority opinion by Justice Rebecca Frank Durrett stated:[t]”The ordinary meaning of a statute is determined by more than the literal meaning of a single phrase read in isolation,” she argues, and argues that the statute uses “pedestrian path” and “sidewalk” in a way that indicates that the two are supposed to be separate and distinct concepts.

A full reading of the text of this section reveals several indications that the definition of a pedestrian path does not include sidewalks. First, both § 346.02(8)(a) and (b) use the terms “sidewalk” and “pedestrian path,” indicating that each term has a separate, non-overlapping meaning….

Section 346.02(8)(b) provides that for purposes of siting and evaluating public accommodations, pedestrian walkways are to be treated “as if” they were sidewalks. The phrase “as if” indicates that one category (pedestrian walkways) should be treated the same as another category (sidewalks)….

The language of § 346.02(8)(a) also suggests that a sidewalk is not a pedestrian way. The paragraph says that the road rules for sidewalks also apply to pedestrian ways. But if a sidewalk is a pedestrian way, then the road rules that apply to sidewalks already apply to the pedestrian way. The point here, to be clear, is not to interpret the term “pedestrian way” to include sidewalks.
There will be a surplus…

These arguments are clever. But I don’t think they undermine the definition of a “pedestrian-only road” as stated in the law. A “pedestrian-only road” is:
“pedestrian movement.” When a legislator defines a term specifically, that definition takes precedence over any indirect contextual inferences that a judge may extract from other provisions of the law.

In some cases, a term may have a technical meaning in the law that is different from its ordinary language meaning. But that is not the case here. The legislature specifically defined the term in a way that precludes its interpretation as a complex “jargon.”

Moreover, the seeming anomalies pointed out by the majority were effectively addressed in Chief Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler’s decision.

The clear language of the statute indicates that the term “pedestrian way” is broadly defined to include sidewalks. A sidewalk (a portion of a highway made for pedestrian passage) is clearly a part of a pedestrian way (a sidewalk separated or allocated for pedestrian passage). A straightforward and common-sense interpretation of the statute’s language would require that a “sidewalk designated for pedestrian passage” necessarily includes that portion of a highway “constructed for pedestrian use.”

[I]In other words, if we take a closer look at the clear meaning of the statute,
Sidewalks are pedestrian streets, but not all pedestrian streets are sidewalks….

I acknowledge that Wisconsin Statute 346.02(8) uses the terms “sidewalk” and “pedestrian path” in two separate sentences, close together.
In some circumstances, one might suggest that these terms have completely different meanings. However, there is a logical answer to this assumption: a sidewalk is always a pedestrian road, but the term “pedestrian road” has a broader meaning than just a sidewalk…

Any mystery created by, for example, the statute’s language that says pedestrian ways must be treated “as if” they were sidewalks is eliminated when one recognizes that “all sidewalks are pedestrian ways, but not all pedestrian ways are sidewalks.” The meaning of that provision is that the rules that apply to sidewalks also apply to pedestrian ways, even if they are not sidewalks. do not have And as the Chief Justice pointed out, the latter category includes many things, such as “aerial walkways and promenades in public parks not adjacent to highways.”

I would add that the context of eminent domain is also worth noting here: in Wisconsin, as in many other states, laws authorizing eminent domain must be “strictly construed” against the government. Previous Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions The court “strictly interpreted the prisoner’s powers, while
If the government uses provisions that favor landowners “Despotic power” If eminent domain is granted, landowners should at least be given clear instructions for what purposes their land may be taken.

The majority refused to apply the rule here because they argued that the relevant statutes were “unambiguous” and clearly indicated that the government could use eminent domain to seize land to build sidewalks. This argument is patently false. It requires highly complex legal reasoning to reach the conclusion that a sidewalk is somehow not a “pedestrian way.” It’s the kind of legal arcana that makes people hate lawyers.

Counterintuitive technical legal reasoning has its merits, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court erred in applying it here.

Although this decision reaches questionable conclusions, it can be a useful teaching tool for law professors. The majority offers a variety of complex arguments to circumvent the plain meaning of the text, not all of which we have covered here, and the dissent has good responses to them. This case can help students understand the various ways that justices use context to circumvent seemingly clear meanings. But the majority opinion ultimately: do not have things to do.