Circuit judge allows lawsuit challenging wedding barn law to continue

Two small business owners scored a pre-Thanksgiving win in circuit court in their challenge to the state’s new “wedding barn” law, with a Trempeleau County circuit judge ruling that their lawsuit against the state can proceed.

The business owners, Farmview Event Barn LLC and Monarch Valley Weddings and Events LLC, have sued the state Department of Revenue — which sought to have the case dismissed — alleging that certain provisions of Wisconsin’s new liquor law will regulate their event venues out of business.

The law, enacted last year and scheduled to take effect in 2026, requires that a “venue, location, open space, room, or establishment” which is accessible, held out or made available “to the public for rent for an event or social gathering” is a “public place” under the law.

That means that venues such as wedding barns, which occasionally are rented to private parties for weddings and similar events, are now considered public places whereas previously they were not.

“As ‘public places’ under the law, businesses like our clients can either close, not permit alcohol consumption on their premises during events, obtain a liquor license or get a ‘no sale event venue permit,’” said an attorney for the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), which is representing the plaintiffs.

In the lawsuit, WILL attorneys contend that the new provisions of the law violate their clients’ rights as guaranteed by the Wisconsin constitution.

“Liquor licenses are not only expensive, but even if our clients did want to obtain a liquor license there are practical issues which make that difficult,” WILL states. “They are operating under conditional use permits with their local governments. They would need to completely upend their business model, and would lose their ability to allow guests to supply their own alcohol.”

The other option, WILL contends, would be to obtain an Act 73 “no sale event venue permit.” That would allow private event venue customers to continue to carry-in and consume beer and wine but it would also limit the private event venues to hosting a total of only six events per year and no more than one event per month. 

The Department of Revenue and other supporters of the law contend the changes are necessary to bring wedding barns and similar event venues under the state’s regulatory umbrella. However, the judge rejected the motion to dismiss and the case will now head to trial.

“This is a great win for our clients and for anyone opposed to government-sponsored cronyism and economic protectionism in our state,” WILL deputy counsel Lucas Vebber said. “This legislation is nothing more than an attack on their businesses to limit or eliminate competition — and those facts will finally come to light through the legal process. Our clients will get their day in court.”

The complaint

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs’ primary business is to rent out barns to private parties to host private events, mostly weddings — a Wisconsin tradition.

“For years, private event venues, like plaintiffs’, have allowed renters to bring and consume their own alcohol at their private events,” the complaint states. “Wisconsin law has long required businesses to have a liquor license if they are a ‘public place’ where alcohol is consumed; however, private event venues have not been required to have a license because they host events that are not open to the public.”

Not only is the practice time-honored, WILL argues, but the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR) has blessed the business model, recognizing that a license was not needed for renters to consume their own private chattel property — alcohol — at a private event on private real property.

The new legislation changes all that, the lawsuit observes.

“2023 Wisconsin Act 73 creates a new regulatory framework for alcohol consumption, which will go into effect on January 1, 2026, and may put plaintiffs out of business well before then,” the complaint states. “Act 73 defines a ‘public place’ as virtually any space available for rent — such as plaintiffs’ private event venues.”

Problematically, WILL argues, Act 73 contains many exemptions, making the scheme illogical and discriminatory. 

“For example, a tailgate party in the parking lot of Lambeau Field is not a ‘public place’ — but an invite-only private wedding party at a barn is,” the complaint states. 

What’s more, WILL continued, weddings are often planned far in advance, and few couples want a venue at which they may not be able to consume alcohol. 

“Although the changes are not in effect yet, the very threat of them has already caused potential renters to take their business elsewhere, injuring plaintiffs,” the complaint contends. “Act 73 violates plaintiffs’ right to earn an honest living and to equal protection. It also violates the Wisconsin Constitution’s uniform taxation rule.”

The specifics

Neither Farmview nor Monarch have a liquor license nor do they sell or otherwise provide alcohol, but, at private events at their venues, they allow renters and their private guests to consume alcohol that they bring with them, WILL observes.

“Both Farmview and Monarch have operated in this way for years without incident because neither venue was a ‘public place’ required to obtain a liquor license under [the law],” the complaint states. “That section requires the owner, lessee, or person in charge of a ‘public place’ to obtain an appropriate retail license or permit before allowing the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises.”

Under previous law, WILL asserts, the statutes never defined “public place” and the state DOR interpreted “public place” to exclude events where attendees consist only of personally invited guests known to the host (such as weddings), which are not open to the public. 

“Private event venues, including plaintiffs’, relied on defendants’ interpretation to form their business models, invest in their facilities, and grow their businesses,” the complaint states. “Specifically, plaintiffs allow renters to bring alcohol and consume it with their private guests at their private events.”

That practice has proved popular for decades, WILL asserts.

“Plaintiffs and similar private event venues have been sought after by couples because plaintiffs’ business model allows them to offer cheaper prices than traditional wedding venues,” the complaint states. “The model allows renters to do more work on their own — purchasing and serving alcohol — rather than pay plaintiffs to do it.”

The new law is a gambit by special interests to eliminate competition, WILL argues.

“Act 73 was supported by special interests representing more traditional wedding venues and their lobbyists,” the complaint states. “The effect of Act 73 is to limit, if not eliminate, competition with those more traditional wedding venues.”

Once Act 73 takes effect, WILL states, plaintiffs’ private event venues, and many other spaces around Wisconsin, will be considered “public places” for the first time.

Deeper dive

The lawsuit digs deep into the potential ramifications of that reclassification. For one thing, the complaint states, such venue owners will have only two options: obtain a retail liquor license or obtain a “no sale event venue” permit.

Venue owners will suffer under either scenario, WILL asserts.

“Obtaining a liquor license would prohibit customers from ‘carrying in’ their own alcohol, and instead require them to purchase that alcohol from the private event venue, thereby driving up the costs of hosting events at plaintiffs’ private event venues and eliminating their unique place in the market as a lower-cost alternative to traditional venues,” the lawsuit states.

In addition, WILL continued, obtaining an Act 73 “no sale event venue” permit would allow private event venue renters to carry-in and consume but they would be limited to beer and wine, and the owner could only host a maximum of six events per year, and no more than one event per month.

“Either option will likely put plaintiffs out of business,” the complaint states. “Plaintiffs do not want to obtain a liquor license, and do not want their businesses to sell, handle, or otherwise provide alcohol.” 

And even if the plaintiffs did want to obtain a liquor license, their private event venues are operating under conditional use permits with their local government, so obtaining a liquor license would require them to seek an amendment to those permits. Then, too, WILL continued, plaintiffs’ private event venues host significantly more than six events per year and more than one event per month.

“Limiting plaintiffs’ ability to operate on their normal schedules will likely put them out of business, as their revenue will be reduced dramatically,” the complaint states. “They will also struggle to recruit and retain staff to work for only six days per year.”

Special interest exemptions

In the complaint, WILL points out that not all venues that meet the new definition of “public place” will be regulated in the same way, but instead the legislature arbitrarily carved out exemptions for various venues.

“Specifically, Act 73 creates two categories of facilities that meet the new definition of ‘public place’: one category subject to licensing and regulation and another category that is exempt,” the complaint states. “The exempt category includes: rooms in a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast that are used for overnight accommodations; vacation rental properties and other properties of temporary lodging (if ‘furnished with sufficient beds for all adult guests to sleep’); campsites in a campground; parking lots, driveways, and yards where vehicles may be parked ‘on the same day as a professional or collegiate sporting event or other ticketed event open to the public’; and property inside a professional baseball or football stadium district that is used in connection with, and on the same day as, a professional game or other ticketed event open to the public held at the stadium.”

Additionally, WILL continues, the “public place” requirements do not apply to municipalities, buildings and parks owned by counties, athletic fields, school buildings, events on campuses of private colleges, churches, state fair park, and clubs.

The law offers no explanation and provides no rationale for why a private event venue located within a professional baseball or football district is not considered a ‘public place,’ WILL observed, but a private event venue located outside of those districts is a public place. 

“The dividing line between these categories is illogical,” the complaint states.

The state lacks even a rational basis for treating a private event venue located within a stadium district differently than a private event venue located outside of a stadium district, yet under Act 73, private event venues located within a stadium district can operate more freely than private event venues located elsewhere in Wisconsin, WILL asserts.

“If plaintiffs’ private event venues were, for example, located near Lambeau Field (and, therefore, in a professional football stadium district), during events at the stadium they would not be a ‘public place,’ so they would be allowed to host significantly more events,” the complaint states. “Because, however, they are located in rural townships, plaintiffs’ private event venues are regulated much more harshly under Act 73.”

What’s more, WILL continues, state law exempts private event venues owned by municipalities, counties, schools, private colleges, churches, and clubs, again without offering any explanation or rationale as to why.

“The law additionally allows the consumption of alcohol in parking lots, driveways, or yards, so long as it is consumed ‘on the same day as a ticketed event held at a stadium,’” the complaint states. “Notably, there is no requirement in that exemption that those parking lots, driveways, or yards be located near, or used in conjunction with, the stadium, as there is with the professional stadium district exemptions. There just must be some ticketed event, somewhere, taking place, and consumption of alcohol in a parking lot is acceptable.”

Such provisions are nonsensical, WILL asserts.

“In addition, Monarch operates a lodge which is used for overnight accommodations, and which falls within the category of locations exempted from the expansive reach of Act 73’s ‘public place’ requirements,” the complaint states. “Accordingly, it could be lawful for someone to carry in and consume alcohol in Monarch’s lodge but not in Monarch’s own private event venue. Guests who desire to consume alcohol during an event hosted at the private event venue would need to leave the venue, walk to the lodge, consume the beverage, and then walk back to the venue.”

Such a regulatory scheme is irrational, WILL declared.

For one thing, the plaintiffs argue, the new regulatory framework violates the plaintiffs’ right to earn an honest living, which WILL asserts is safeguarded by Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin constitution, primarily because it arbitrarily impedes the plaintiffs’ business and does not further any legitimate governmental interest.

“This ancient right is fundamental,” the complaint states. “Absent the new regulatory framework, plaintiffs would continue operating their businesses without incident, as they have for years. Plaintiffs — and more importantly, renters — benefit greatly from the cost-saving options that private event venues provide.”

Anti-competitive in design, maybe in intent

The effect of the new regulatory framework, if not the intent, is to prevent competitive innovation in the wedding venue industry, WILL asserts. 

“The government lacks any power to engage in cronyism,” the complaint states. “As a result, the ‘public place’ regulatory scheme in Act 73 must be declared unconstitutional, and defendants must be prohibited from enforcing them going forward.”

The new regulatory framework also violates plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection, WILL contends.

“The new regulatory framework divides rentable property into two categories: those where alcohol consumption requires a permit and those where it does not,” the complaint states. “The dividing line, however, between these two categories is, at best, arbitrary, and at worst, cronyism — either way, it cannot stand.”

First, WILL argues, those who privately own private event venues in certain parts of the state are similarly situated to owners in other parts of the state, or other entities that may own private event venues. 

“All offer a similar service to renters,” the complaint states. “Yet, private individuals who own a private event venue in particular parts of the state (such as where plaintiffs are located) are subject to onerous extensive licensing and restrictions, while other similarly situated businesses are not.”

For example, WILL explained, there is no reason to exempt the consumption of alcohol in parking lots, hotels, private event venues owned by municipalities or private colleges, or private event venues located in a professional stadium district but not to exempt private event venues like those owned by the plaintiffs.

“The parking lots exemption is particularly absurd because people who drink at a lot are very likely to get in an automobile that they drove to the lot and drive,” the complaint asserts.“Again, there is no substantial distinction between venues which are subject to licensing and permitting, and those which are not.”

A private event venue located in the town of Berlin or the town of Preston is not so different from a private event venue located near Lambeau Field to suggest that state government can regulate those two venues substantially differently with one treated much more favorably than the other, WILL contended.

“If anything, whatever danger is posed by the consumption of alcohol, that danger is much greater at a Packer game with tens of thousands of fans in attendance who will then all proceed to drive home around the same time,” the complaint asserts.

What’s more, WILL continued, under the new provisions, the town of Berlin is allowed to rent out its town hall for a wedding at which alcohol will be consumed; however, a wedding barn a short distance away is treated differently.

“The ‘public place’ classifications are arbitrary, irrational, and bear no rational relationship to any legitimate government purpose,” the complaint states. “Instead, those classifications violate the equal protection clause of the Wisconsin Constitution.”

WILL also asserts that the new provisions violate the principles of uniform taxation because they exempt certain venues with no rational basis for doing so, much less a reasonable one, WILL asserts.

Finally, the option to purchase “no-sale event venue” permits make anticompetitive, irrational, and arbitrary distinctions between classes of Wisconsin citizens, violating plaintiffs’ right to earn an honest living, and their right to equal protection under the law, WILL asserts.

“Indeed, there is no reasonable basis for requiring some private event venues to obtain a limiting ‘no sale event venue’ permit, while allowing others to continue operating as they have been without such a permit,” the complaint states.

The plaintiffs in the case say the new provisions will upend their entire business models.

“It is unfair that the state of Wisconsin has chosen to single out the few barn venues that are a destination only,” Monarch Valley Wedding and Events owner Daniel Gallagher said. “We lease our space to couples wishing to have a country-style wedding. Requiring us to be a liquor retailer in a dry township is causing our small, family-run business — which already pays state and local real estate taxes — to go out of business.”

Farmview Event Barn owner Jean Bahn said the legislation was designed by special interest groups and hurts small businesses.

“I am not in this to become a millionaire, we are just trying to get by,” Bahn said. “Hosting low-cost weddings in our barn allows us to pay for maintenance and updates of our home and farm equipment to keep our farm up and running. This legislation was designed by special interests in Madison to limit competition, and that’s not right.”

Richard Moore is the author of “Dark State” and may be reached at richardd3d.substack.com.