⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Seventh Circuit hears Michael Melgaard's retaliation case against Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources and two supervisors. Melgaard was a conservation warden who supported a colleague's discrimination complaint against the department. He says supervisors then singled him out for sharing a work vehicle with another warden, contrary to pandemic safety rules. The department investigated, decided no formal discipline was needed, then issued a letter of expectations and a partly negative performance review. Melgaard says those actions, taken together, were retaliation for supporting the complaint. He sued the department under federal employment law and the supervisors personally for alleged First Amendment violations. The district judge dismissed the constitutional claims on sovereign-immunity grounds, treating them as effectively against the state. The judge also rejected the employment claim because the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to change working conditions. Melgaard's lawyer will argue that personal damages claims can proceed, and that the proper retaliation test asks whether the actions would deter a reasonable person from speaking up. The defendants' lawyer will argue that this employment-related damages suit is effectively against the state, and that the conduct falls short under either test. Listen for two separate questions: who can be sued, and how serious retaliation must be.

Melgaard v. Wisconsin DNR (No. 25-3275) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 4, 2026.