MPS school resource officer deadline; will city be in compliance?
The Brief
The deadline for school resource officers to return to MPS was Saturday, March 15.
The city could pay $1,000 each day until it is in compliance with state law.
Mayor Johnson said he's confident the city is on track to comply with a court order.
MILWAUKEE - The court-ordered deadline for resource officers to return to Milwaukee Public Schools was Saturday, March 15. Whether the city is in compliance when students return on Monday remains to be seen.
The backstory
The city failed to comply with Judge David Borowski's previous deadline, which required school resource officers – or SROs – to return by Feb. 27.
FREE DOWNLOAD: Get breaking news alerts in the FOX LOCAL Mobile app for iOS or Android
"I expect my orders to be followed. You don't have to like them, but they need to be followed," he said last month.
Borowski ordered the city to deploy school resource officers, or show proof of progress, by March 15. If the city fails to do so, it must pay $1,000 each day until it is in compliance with the law.
What they're saying
Mayor Cavalier Johnson said he's confident the city is on track to comply with a judge's order, and everything will be in place by the time students return on Monday.
"It's what's in the bill, so given that it's what's in the bill, I wanted to get it accomplished," he said. "That's exactly where we are now."
SIGN UP TODAY: Get daily headlines, breaking news emails from FOX6 News
"What I know is SROs and some of our security staff are in training, and we are excited to see this moving forward," said Michael Harris, MPS interim chief school administration officer.
The National Association of School Resource Officers told FOX6 News it has trained 38 officers, each of whom has completed 40 hours of SRO training as of Friday.
What's next
The case is back in court on Monday for a hearing.
Big picture view
A state law, passed in 2023, helped municipalities with their budgets. For Milwaukee, it required at least 25 school resource officers to return to MPS by Jan. 1, 2024. When that didn't happen, a parent sued.
In a statement to FOX6, the attorney for the MPS parent show sued said "they are waiting for MPS and the city to comply with the law."
The Source
Information in this report is from the City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee Public Schools and prior FOX6 News coverage of the order for school resource officers to return to MPS.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
LA unrest marks latest clash of US presidents, states over National Guard
Donald Trump's deployment of California's National Guard marks the first time in decades that a US president openly defied a state governor and sent troops to an emergency zone. By ordering 2,000 guardsmen to Los Angeles to help quell protests against raids by US immigration agents, Trump essentially mounted a takeover of the state's military regiments to address "lawlessness" on the city's streets. The National Guard is a reserve military rooted in the 17th century local militias created in the American colonies before the country's founding. Since then the guard has had multiple responsibilities: domestic disaster relief and security, homeland defense and prevention of civil unrest; and acting as reserve forces for US military deployments overseas. Presidential orders to deploy guardsmen domestically are not uncommon. But clashes between a president and governor over deployments -- or the lack thereof, such as during the US Capitol riot by Trump supporters on January 6, 2021 while he was still in office -- have been rare. - Los Angeles, 2025 - The White House said Trump relied on a seldom used law, known as Title 10, that permits National Guard federalization in times of "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." California Governor Gavin Newsom called the decision "purposefully inflammatory." But Trump's order proceeded, and the guard troops were on LA streets Sunday. "This is the first time since 1965 that a president has deployed the National Guard without a request by a state governor," Kenneth Roth, a longtime former Human Rights Watch executive director, posted on X. "Then it was (president Lyndon) Johnson protecting civil rights protesters. Now it's Trump creating a spectacle so he can continue his immigration raids." Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice warned of a "shocking abuse of power" by Trump, whose memorandum authorizes federalization of National Guard troops "at locations where protests against (federal immigration) functions are occurring or are likely to occur." "Trump has authorized the deployment of troops anywhere in the country where protests against ICE activity might occur," Goitein posted on X. "That is a huge red flag." - Alabama, 1965 - A landmark civil rights moment led to a National Guard clash between a president and a segregationist governor. With demonstrators led by Martin Luther King Jr on a five-day march from Selma to Alabama's capital Montgomery, governor George Wallace pledged National Guard security -- but then reneged. The U-turn incensed Johnson who, in defiance of Wallace, called up the guard. The march was protected by thousands of Army soldiers and federalized guard members. - Arkansas, 1957 - When the Little Rock school system was ordered desegregated, Arkansas' pro-segregationist governor Orval Faubus deployed the National Guard to surround a high school and prevent nine Black students from entering. President Dwight Eisenhower bristled at the standoff and told Faubus the guard must maintain order so the Black students could attend. Instead, Faubus pulled the guardsmen, leaving security to local forces. Eisenhower issued an executive order federalizing the Arkansas National Guard, and ordered 1,000 US Army troops to join them. - Kent State, 1970 - Perhaps no anti-Vietnam war protest was more pivotal than at Ohio's Kent State University, where students slammed Richard Nixon's war expansion. As unrest swelled, the National Guard opened fire, killing four students and wounding nine others. The shootings sparked outrage, but also led to reforms regarding how the guard handles civil unrest and use of force. - Hurricane Katrina, 2005 - The massive hurricane left much of New Orleans underwater, leading to the largest-ever peacetime deployment of the National Guard. But critics accused then-president George W Bush of favoring a militaristic response over humanitarian relief. Louisiana's governor, Kathleen Blanco, warned that many among the thousands of National Guard and federal troops were battle-tested Iraq war veterans. "These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will," she reportedly said. - Outside White House, 2020 - June 1, 2020 saw a brutal crackdown on demonstrators following the police murder of African-American George Floyd. With people aggressively protesting near the White House, the National Guard joined police to maintain order. Flash grenades and tear gas were deployed. Unlike in the nation's 50 states, the DC National Guard is under direct command of the US president, who at the time was Trump. mlm/st
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Speaker Johnson teases follow-ups to the ‘one big, beautiful bill'
The 'one big, beautiful bill' may not be so singular, after all. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is teasing follow-up legislation to the megabill of President Trump's tax cut and spending priorities that Republicans can push though using the same special budget reconciliation process that requires only GOP votes. That tool can be used once per fiscal year, with the current fiscal year ending on Sept. 30. So after Republicans are done with the 'big, beautiful bill,' the GOP trifecta has, in theory, two more shots to muscle through party-line legislation before the next Congress comes into power after the midterms. Johnson floated plans for a second reconciliation bill while rebutting concerns from deficit hawks on the budget impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — which includes an extension of tax cuts and boosts to border and defense funding, with costs offset in part by new requirements on low-income assistance programs like Medicaid and food aid. 'Everyone here wants to reduce spending,' Johnson said Friday morning on CNBC. 'But you have to do that in a sequence of events. We have a plan, OK? This is the first of a multistep process.' 'We're going to have another reconciliation bill that follows this one, possibly a third one before this Congress is up, because you can have a reconciliation bill for each budget year, each fiscal year. So that's ahead of us,' Johnson continued, also pointing to separate plans to claw back money based on recommendations from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 'We're also doing rescissions packages. We got the first one delivered this week from the White House, and that will codify many of the DOGE cuts.' The promise of another reconciliation bill is somewhat surprising given the crux of the debate that dominated the early weeks of the year: Should Republicans divide up their agenda into two bills, passing the first quickly to give Trump an early win on boosting funding for border enforcement and deportations? Or would putting all of Trump's priorities into one bill — which would contain both bitter pills and sweeteners for different factions of the razor-thin majority — be a better political strategy? Trump eventually said he preferred 'one big, beautiful bill,' a moniker that became the legislation's official title in the House last month. It's not clear what would be in a second piece of legislation. Multiple House Republicans who spoke with The Hill were unaware of plans for more reconciliation bills and were not sure what could be included in them. 'I think we need to see what's left on the table after the first one,' Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) said. And to muster through multiple reconciliation bills is a delicate prospect. If members know more reconciliation bills are coming, that complicates the argument that everything in the current package — even policies some factions dislike that others love — need to stay in one megabill. The Speaker declined to elaborate on what might be in such a package when asked in a press conference last week. 'I'm not going to tell you that,' Johnson said. 'Let's get the first one done.' 'Look, I say this is the beginning of a process, and what you're going to see is a continuing of us identifying waste, fraud, abuse in government, which is our pledge of common sense, restoring common sense and fiscal sanity. So we have lots of ideas of things that might be in that package.' Republicans had started planning for the current legislative behemoth months before the 2024 election so they would be prepared to quickly execute on their policy wish list if they won the majority. 'This isn't something we just drew up overnight. So, we'll go through that same laborious process,' Johnson said. But some members have ideas of what else they'd like to see. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) said that he'd hope a second bill would do more to tackle rolling back green energy tax credits and make further spending cuts. Ultimately, though, it will be Trump's call, Norman said: 'I know when the president gets involved, it adds a lot of value.' And Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) speculated that passing the 'big, beautiful bill' would inspire members to keep going with another bill. 'People like the feeling of winning,' Pfluger said.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Republicans Say They're Cool With Trump Deploying Troops Against Protesters
The U.S. secretary of defense has threatened to send active-duty Marines into the streets of Los Angeles to confront protesters opposing the administration's detention and deportation of immigrants. At least three prominent Republicans don't seem concerned about potential overreach. 'The [Department of Defense] is mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles. And, if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert,' Hegseth wrote late Saturday on X, formerly Twitter, on his personal account. This prompted ABC's Jonathan Karl to ask House Speaker Mike Johnson: 'Could we really see active duty Marines on the streets of Los Angeles?' 'One of our core principles is maintaining peace through strength,' Johnson said during an interview on Sunday's episode of This Week. 'We do that on foreign affairs and domestic affairs as well. I don't think that's heavy handed. I think that's an important signal.' 'You don't think sending Marines into the streets of an American city is heavy-handed?' Karl asked. 'We have to be prepared to do what is necessary, and I think the notice that that might happen might have the deterring effect,' Johnson said. Active-duty military troops have not been sent in to suppress unrest since the 1992 Los Angeles protests after a jury acquitted four white police officers in the beating of Rodney King, a Black man who was pulled over for a traffic violation. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits federal troops from engaging in civilian law enforcement unless there is a clear legal or constitutional basis for doing so. It was created to restrict the president's ability to use the military against civilians. The exception to Posse Comitatus is the Insurrection Act, which Trump has not invoked. Instead, Trump invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services, which limits the troops' actions to protecting federal officials rather than enforcing laws. Title 10 gives Trump authority to deploy the National Guard during 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States' and two other specific circumstances. Chris Mirasola of Lawfare wrote that Trump's justification for using this authority is 'factually contestable and, even on the face of the memorandum, unusually weak.' Republican Sen. James Lankford on NBC's Meet the Press argued that by deploying the National Guard, Trump is 'trying to deescalate all the tensions that are there.' Newsom has said that Trump activating National Guard troops is 'purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions' 'This is an American city, and to be able to have an American city where we have people literally flying Mexican flags and saying, 'You cannot arrest us,' cannot be allowed,' Lankford said on Sunday. 'If someone violates the law, no matter what state that they're in, they're in violation of a federal law. They should face consequences for that.' Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin also criticized protesters for carrying Mexican flags. 'They were literally out there protesting, carrying a foreign flag. That is absolutely insane. They are not just peaceful protesters. These are illegals,' he said Sunday on State of the Union. 'Carrying a flag is not illegal, as you know,' CNN's Dana Bash responded. 'Foreign flag while you're attacking law enforcement, it's pretty bad,' Mullin said. Carrying a Mexican flag and saying 'You cannot arrest us' is not a prosecutable offense. It is free speech protected by the First Amendment. And the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has been clear that anyone found destructing property will be arrested. 'Everyone has the right to peacefully assemble and voice their opinions,' LAPD posted on X. 'However, vandalizing property and attempting to seriously injure officers, whether Federal or LAPD, is not peaceful.' When Meet the Press host Kristen Welker pointed out to Lankford that 'Governor Newsom says there is no unmet law enforcement need. The LAPD says the protests were peaceful,' the senator claimed that it is 'clear' that the LAPD is 'being overwhelmed.' (LAPD has not said they are overwhelmed.) 'This wouldn't be an issue if California didn't promote sanctuary city policies to be able to tell people literally, 'You can violate federal law and live in our state, and no one will arrest you for this,'' Lankford said. 'Now suddenly when they are arrested for federal crimes then suddenly they go into this kind of protest saying, 'No, you can't arrest us here. We're immune from federal law.' That's not true.' Here, Lankford is being misleading. Sanctuary city policies do not grant anyone immunity, they only limit how state and local resources are allocated to aid federal immigration enforcement. Under the Tenth Amendment, states have the right to allocate resources as they see fit, and states have used that amendment in court to justify not assisting with federal immigration raids. It's disturbing that prominent GOP lawmakers are signing on to the president's use of authority to activate the National Guard — against a governor's wishes — and signaling their agreement that deploying active duty Marines against civilians would be fine with them should Trump choose to do so. 'Don't kid yourself they know they are absolutely getting cooked politically [with] their terrible bill and rising prices, and they want to create a violent spectacle to feed their content machine,' Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz posted on X late Saturday. 'It's time for the mainstream media to describe this authoritarian madness accurately.' More from Rolling Stone Trump's Response to L.A. Protests: What We Know The Biggest Boondoggles in Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Donald Trump Is Destroying the Economy and Waging War on the Poor Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
