The Legal Center is the advocate for small businesses in the courts. We tell judges how the decision they make, in a given case, will impact small businesses nationwide. Importantly, we only initiate lawsuits and file amicus (“friend-of-the-court”) briefs in precedent-setting cases. That means we go to court in those cases that will impact many small business owners.
Case Index
سԹ Small Business Legal Center Case Index, 2020-2026
Alabama
Amicus:
Ex Parte INV Performance Surfaces, LLC (9/12/24) – Alabama Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that Alabama courts do not have personal jurisdiction over out-of-state entities that did not engage in contacts with the State of Alabama.
Arizona
Amicus:
Mills v. Arizona (2/10/26) – Arizona Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that small business engineers should not be subject to heightened licensing requirements than they would be if they worked for bigger companies.
California
Plaintiff:
National Retail Federation v. California Occupational Safety and Health (12/16/20) – California Superior Court
سԹ sued the State of California in a case concerning California OSHA’s emergency COVID-19 workplace safety standards, including testing and paid leave requirements. We argued that the standards were in violation of the APA, exceeded the agency’s jurisdiction, and violated due process.
Amicus:
Adolph v. Uber Technologies (12/8/22) – California Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that the California Supreme Court must clarify its Iskanian rule for Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA) claims after the Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, and should do so by adopting a business-friendly and broad approach to arbitration.
Camp v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (10/25/23) – California Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief asking the California Supreme Court to hold that payroll rounding is an acceptable timekeeping practice that does not violate state or federal labor law.
Ghost Golf v. Newsom (4/29/21) – California Court of Appeals; (11/7/23) – California Court of Appeals 5th Appellate District; (7/15/24) – California Supreme Court Certiorari
سԹ filed three amicus briefs arguing that the California governor did not have the constitutional authority to issue COVID-19 shutdown orders, and doing so violated separation of powers and harmed small businesses.
Gonzales v. San Gabriel Transportation (1/6/20) – California Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that the Dynamex decision on independent contractor classification does not apply retroactively.
Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks (10/12/22) – California Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that California courts should not impose tort liability on small businesses for third party claims potentially arising from the workplace. Our brief argues that the proper remedy for these “take-home” COVID-19 derivative injury claims is workers’ compensation.
Leeper v. Shipt (1/7/26) – California Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that California’s Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA) does not permit “headless” PAGA claims, where a person abandons her individual claims and only brings representative claims.
Lent v. California Coastal Commission (7/20/20) – California Court of Appeals Second Appellate District Division 7; (5/27/21) – California Supreme Court
سԹ filed two amicus briefs arguing that a California statute allowing an administrative agency to impose substantial fines and perform hearings without basic fairness procedures violates constitutional due process.
See’s Candies v. Superior Court of California (8/30/21) – California Court of Appeals
سԹ filed an amicus brief supporting the employer in a case that concerns whether employees can subject employers to unlimited tort liability for alleged workplace injuries that are intended to be addressed in the workers’ compensation system.
Western Growers v. Cal/OSHA (6/11/21) – California Court of Appeals
سԹ filed an amicus brief in support of a coalition of agricultural and business employers that challenged COVID-19 related emergency temporary standards (ETS) recently approved by the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board.
Colorado
Amicus:
Allen v. Concord Energy Holdings, LLC (4/20/26) – Colorado Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that employees who breach their fiduciary duty of loyalty to a company should not be eligible for compensation based on that breach, nor should they obtain statutory penalties under the Colorado Wage Claim Act.
Heartland Energy Co. v. Colorado (2/10/20) – Colorado Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that prior precedent requires a fair determination of whether investor partners have enough experience to operate the partnership effectively, which may or may not require industry specific experience.
Chan v. Heartland Energy Development Corp. (9/7/21) – Colorado Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that general partners can actively participate in businesses using their general business experience even if they lack industry-specific experience.
Nieto v. Clark’s Market, Inc. (8/17/20) – Colorado Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that the Colorado Wage Claim Act makes it clear that employers have the freedom to determine whether they will pay for unused vacation time when the employee leaves.
Public Service Company of Colorado v. Estate of Carol Ross (3/6/26) – Colorado Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that the “felonious killing” exception to the Wrongful Death Act’s cap on damages should not extend to small businesses.
Smith v. Terumo BCT (3/3/25) – Colorado Court of Appeals
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that a plaintiff cannot establish standing to sue based solely on an allegation that the defendant’s negligent conduct may increase the future risk of illness, and that medical monitoring without a proven physical injury is not an appropriate remedy under tort law.
Connecticut
Amicus:
Del Rio v. Amazon.com Services LLC (7/28/25) – Connecticut Supreme Court
سԹ filed amicus brief arguing that employee time spent in pre- and post-shift security screenings based on employee personal choice to bring belongings into a secure area is not compensable work time and should be subject to a de minimis exception.
Florida
Amicus:
Cuccaro v. DeSantis (8/23/21) – Florida Circuit Court Leon County
سԹ filed an amicus brief defending the Florida Governor’s decision to end temporary supplemental unemployment benefits.
Georgia
Amicus:
Angus v. Traube (2/7/20) – Georgia Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that when a jury finds multiple individuals responsible for someone’s injury, it must determine each individual’s liability based on their their share of fault.
AU Medical Center, Inc. v. Dale (12/23/24) – Georgia Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief asking the Georgia Supreme Court to review a court of appeals decision allowing plaintiffs and their attorneys to prevent defendants in tort cases from arguing that nonparties or already-dismissed defendants contributed to the injury.
Georgia CVS Pharmacy v. Carmichael (12/1/22) – Georgia Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief urging the Georgia Supreme Court to reverse a court of appeals decision that effectively created a strict liability standard for businesses with crimes committed by third parties on their property.
Illinois
Amicus:
(11/14/25) – Illinois Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that Illinois should not treat time spent in pre-shift security screenings as compensable.
Indiana
Amicus:
Citizens Action Coalition v. Duke Energy (6/9/26) – Indiana Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief urging the Indiana Supreme Court to adopt associational standing, a legal doctrine that allows associations like سԹ to sue on behalf of its members so members do not have to file suit themselves.
Iowa
Amicus:
Iowa Beverage v. Alcoa, Inc. (6/17/20) – Iowa Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that claims against a premises owner and installer of asbestos products were barred by Iowa’s asbestos code.
Kentucky
Amicus:
Nichols v. Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission (9/30/20) – Kentucky Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that the Court should reverse the Court of Appeals’ ruling that employers must be represented by counsel at an unemployment insurance hearing, and that an employer’s appearance without counsel constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
Schneider Electric USA, Inc. v. Williams (7/23/24) – Kentucky Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing against expansion of asbestos liability to include take-home exposure cases.
Union Carbide Corporation v. Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (7/23/24) – Kentucky Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing against expansion of asbestos liability to include take-home exposure cases.
Louisiana
Amicus:
Hartman v. St. Bernard Parish (1/4/21) – Louisiana Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief in support of the employer, St. Bernard Fire Department, arguing that workers’ compensation benefits should not be extended to encompass hearing loss sustained from multiple traumatic events.
Watson Memorial Spiritual Temple of Christ v. Korban, (4/26/24) – Louisiana Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment is self-executing, and Louisiana courts should issue writs of mandamus to nonpaying state and local entities.
Maryland
Amicus:
Martinez v. Amazon.com Services LLC (2/14/25) – Maryland Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that Maryland wage and hour law should include the de minimis doctrine for employee compensable time.
Massachusetts
Amicus:
Patel v. 7-11 (11/17/21) – Massachusetts Supreme Court
سԹ SBLC filed an amicus brief arguing that Massachusetts’ Independent Contractor Law does not apply to the franchisee-franchisor relationship.
Michigan
Plaintiff:
Associated Builders & Contractors of Michigan v. Eubanks (8/24/23) – Michigan Court of Claims; (3/25/24) – Michigan Supreme Court
سԹ filed a lawsuit challenging the Michigan Attorney General and State Treasurer’s interpretation of a tax provision in the Michigan Income Tax Act to allow for the elimination of a tax cut.
Amicus:
Attorney General v. Eli Lilly & Co. (5/1/24), (9/30/25) – Michigan Supreme Court
سԹ filed two amicus briefs, first urging the Court to deny leave to appeal, and second arguing that a statutory exemption should protect companies from targeted consumer protection investigations.
Michigan Farm Bureau v. EGLE (9/13/23) – Michigan Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that a state environmental agency unlawfully issued a rule as a “permit” in violation of the state Administrative Procedures Act’s (APA) rulemaking process.
Minnesota
Plaintiff:
Minnesota Associated Builders & Contractors v. Blissenbach (3/23/26) – County of Ramsey District Court, Second Judicial District
سԹ filed a lawsuit against the State of Minnesota arguing that its new independent contractor law violates the Minnesota Constitution’s Single Subject and Title Clause since it was included in a 1,400 page Omnibus Bill that included at least 13 different subjects.
Amicus:
Minnesota Auto Dealers Association v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (3/13/23) – Minnesota Supreme Court
سԹ filed a request for leave to participate as amicus in a case challenging Minnesota’s implementation of California car emission standards.
Missouri
Plaintiff:
McCarty, et al. v. Missouri Secretary of State (12/6/24; 1/23/25) – Missouri Supreme Court
سԹ filed a lawsuit challenging Proposition A, a paid sick leave mandate and minimum wage increase approved by voters in the 2024 election. Our lawsuit alleged that Prop A violates Missouri law and the state constitution.
Nevada
Plaintiff:
Settelmeyer v. State (7/30/19) – Nevada District Court, First Judicial District for Carson City; (4/5/21) Nevada Supreme Court
سԹ filed a lawsuit challenging the Nevada Legislature’s increase in specific revenues as unconstitutional given that they were not passed with a two-thirds majority as the state constitution requires.
New Jersey
Amicus:
Branch v. Cream O-Land Dairy (2/18/20) – New Jersey Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that employers should be able to rely on guidance by low-level NJ Department of Labor officials acting as the final decision maker in an investigation, when asserting the good-faith defense for failure to pay minimum wage or overtime.
New York
Plaintiff:
Business Council of New York State, Inc. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (4/30/25) – New York State Supreme Court
سԹ joined a business coalition in suing New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation regarding a new rule that would redefine much private property in the state as protected wetlands and impose restrictions on development.
Amicus:
Grant v. Global Air Dispatch, Inc. (4/29/22) – New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that New York Labor law does not confer a private right of action for violations of requirement to pay “manual workers” on a weekly basis and that the statute does not permit liquidated damages.
Hedges v. Planned Security (8/28/20) – New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
سԹ filed an amicus brief in support of defendants to push back against runaway verdicts generated by plaintiffs’ attorneys who are seeking to raise pain and suffering awards.
Perez v. Live Nation (9/8/20; 4/30/21) – New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department
سԹ filed two amicus briefs addressing improper anchoring practices that have led to excessive pain and suffering awards in New York.
Redish v. Adler (12/27/20) – New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
سԹ filed an amicus brief in support of defendants to push back against runaway verdicts generated by plaintiffs’ attorneys who are seeking to raise pain and suffering awards.
North Carolina
Amicus:
Betts v. North Carolina Department of Health – (8/19/22) – North Carolina Court of Appeals
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that a North Carolina statute requiring “total loss of wage-earning capacity” to receive disability beyond a statutorily-imposed cap meant a complete destruction of the ability to earn wages.
Griffin v. Absolute Fire Control (3/17/20) – North Carolina Supreme Court
سԹ filed an brief arguing that the court of appeals misapplied the standard of review for appeals from the Industrial Commission and impermissibly imposed a burden on the Defendant to disprove the disability.
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality v. N.C. Farm Bureau Federation (2/28/25) – North Carolina Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that general permits, which impose binding conditions on the public, are unpromulgated rules in violation of the state Administrative Procedure Act.
Saunders v. Hull Property Group (4/15/20) – North Carolina Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief defending North Carolina’s 2011 worker’s compensation reform on work eligibility.
Sturdivant v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety (9/22/2022) – North Carolina Court of Appeals
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that the NC Workers’ Compensation Commission correctly defined “total loss of wage-earning capacity” to mean the complete loss of the ability to earn wages in any employment and that the plaintiff in this case did not satisfy that standard.
Ohio
Amicus:
Brandt v. Pompa (11/24/21) – Ohio Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief in the case Brandt v. Pompa at the Ohio Supreme Court, on the constitutionality of Ohio’s statutory limit on noneconomic damages.
Ohio v. DeWine (7/22/21) – Ohio Court of Common Pleas
سԹ filed an amicus brief urging the court to uphold the Governor’s suspension of temporary supplemental unemployment benefits.
Schaad v. Alder (8/10/2022) – Ohio Supreme Court
سԹ filed an brief advocating for fair municipal taxing schemes. Our brief argued that an Ohio COVID-19 tax law to relieve businesses of separate municipal tax burdens when employees work from home, did not speak to where an employee’s income is taxable.
Oklahoma
Amicus:
Stewart v. Stitt (7/30/21) – Oklahoma Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief defending Oklahoma Governor’s decision to end temporary supplemental unemployment benefits.
Oregon
Plaintiff:
Oregon Business & Industry v. Environmental Quality Commission (4/16/26) – Oregon Court of Appeals
After successfully blocking Oregon’s Climate Protection Program (CPP) on procedural grounds a few years prior, سԹ again sued the Environmental Quality Commission over its new version of the CPP, arguing that tax and environmental policy should be set by the Oregon Legislature and not imposed by state administrative agencies.
Oregon-Columbia Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. Kotek(2/21/25) – Oregon Circuit Court, Marion County
سԹ sued the Oregon Governor, challenging her executive order that requires businesses to sign project labor agreements with unions for all state projects.
*Oregon Farm Bureau, et al. v. Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (9/21/22)
سԹ sued the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) arguing that its Climate Protection Program rules were procedurally deficient and exceeded the EQC’s statutory authority.
Amicus:
Athena v. Pelican Brewing Co. (5/8/26) – Oregon Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief asking the State high court to correct a court of appeals decision that permits employees to ignore employer instructions to take a full 30-minute meal break, clock in early from that break, and then seek compensation for the full 30-minutes.
Bohr v. Tillamook County Creamery Association (12/21/23) – Oregon Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing against a theory of liability that says if a business engaged in a deceptive marketing practice, anyone who purchased a product while the price was inflated can participate in a class action lawsuit against the business.
Mirkovic v. TenAsys Corporation (6/27/25) – Oregon Court of Appeals; (5/20/26) – Oregon Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief in the court of appeals arguing that a pay transparency law does not shield employees from termination during raise or promotion negotiations, and then filed a second amicus brief in the Supreme Court asking the court to review the lower court’s decision.
Pennsylvania
Amicus:
Bernavage v. Green Ridge Healthcare LLC(9/23/25) – Pennsylvania Supreme Court
سԹ filed amicus brief arguing that courts should not permit plaintiffs to raise new theories of liability claiming punitive at the last possible moment.
Bowfin Keycon Holdings, LLC v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (6/6/22) – Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court; (9/9/24) – Pennsylvania Supreme Court
سԹ filed two amicus briefs arguing that Pennsylvania Regulation 7-559, which allows the state to join a multi-state climate change compact, usurps the legislative power to tax granted by the Pennsylvania Constitution and that the Regulation will increase electricity and energy costs on small businesses and consumers.
Bucks County v. BP P.L.C. (4/15/26) –- Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that the federal Clean Air Act preempts local counties, like Bucks County, from bringing state tort law claims against members of the fossil fuel industry for alleged damages from the effects of global climate change.
Commonwealth v. Chesapeake Energy Corp. (1/9/20) – Pennsylvania Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law only prohibits unfair or deceptive practices by sellers, not in any commercial transaction, and does not give the Attorney General power to pursue antitrust claims.
Hangey v. Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc. (7/21/22) – Pennsylvania Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure should not be interpreted to require a business to defend itself in a jurisdiction where its sales are a de minimis or negligible percentage of its overall operation.
Gill v. ExxonMobil (6/23/25) – Pennsylvania Superior Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing against wildly disproportionate “nuclear” jury verdicts that are untethered from actual damages.
Mortimer v. McCool (9/8/20) – Pennsylvania Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that Pennsylvania law has long held that a court may only “pierce the corporate veil” and hold individual business owners personally liable in very limited circumstances.
Punxsutawney Hunting Club, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Game Commission (1/18/24) – Pennsylvania Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief urging the State Supreme Court to discard the “open fields” doctrine, which allows for warrantless searches of private property.
Santiago v. Sky Zone, LLC (4/20/23) – Pennsylvania Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that parents ought to be able to bind minor children to arbitration clauses and that the lower court could not create an exception out of whole cloth.
Scarnati v. Wolf (6/23/20) – Pennsylvania Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief that challenged Governor Wolf’s emergency declaration. The brief argued that following an initial emergency declaration by the Governor, the General Assembly was authorized to act and the Governor should end his declaration.
Shirley v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau (9/9/24) – Pennsylvania Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s requirement that fossil fuel-fired electricity generators purchase CO2 allowances is an unlawful tax.
Ziadeh v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau (11/28/2022) – Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Middle District
سԹ SBLC joined coalition amicus brief arguing that the Commonwealth Court correctly issued a preliminary injunction against Pennsylvania’s 7-559 Regulation because it presented a substantial question of law. We further argued that the requirement to purchase allowances is an unconstitutional tax.
South Carolina
Amicus:
Brannon v. McMaster (8/27/21) – South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, Fifth District
سԹ filed an amicus brief defending South Carolina Governor’s decision to end temporary supplemental unemployment benefits.
Devey v. Johnson & Johnson (8/17/20) – South Carolina Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that the trial court erred in allowing a personal injury case to proceed forward against a defendant where the plaintiff had no known exposures to asbestos and a type of cancer (peritoneal or “abdominal” mesothelioma) that typically has no known association with the product used.
Edwards v. Scapa Waycross (7/18/23) – South Carolina Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing against a “cumulative dose” asbestos exposure theory, stating that such a theory would open businesses up to frivolous and expensive lawsuits over incidental asbestos exposures.
Richardson v. 420,771 in U.S. Currency and Travis Green (9/9/2020) – South Carolina Supreme Court
سԹ filed an brief asking the South Carolina Supreme Court to take a case that could limit the state’s use of civil asset forfeiture.
Tennessee
Amicus:
C.M v. Lee (9/3/21) – U.S. District Court for Tennessee
سԹ filed an amicus brief defending the Tennessee Governor’s decision to end temporary supplemental unemployment benefits.
Coffman v. Armstrong International (4/13/220) – Tennessee Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing against a duty to warn of potential exposure to asbestos by makers of uninsulated products in “bare metal” from containing external thermal insulation manufactured and sold by third parties and attached post-sale, and against a similar duty by manufacturers of pumps and valves that come with asbestos-containing materials.
Shaw v. Nashville (12/9/21) – Tennessee Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief in a case supporting two homeowners challenging a metropolitan code provision that prevented them from serving customers at their home-based businesses.
Texas
Amicus:
Burford v. Alcoa (2/14/23) – Texas Court of Appeals
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that Texas courts should not permit asbestos lawsuits against employers for any exposure to asbestos, regardless of how remote the exposure is, because this would open the floodgates to asbestos litigation.
Ford Motor Co. v. Parks (2/8/24) – Texas Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that Texas’s 15-year statute of repose runs from the date of sale of the product, which means the transfer of the property from buyer to seller regardless of whether payment was rendered in full.
Howmet Aerospace, Inc v. Burford (6/13/24) – Texas Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that court of appeals’ decision upends predictable standard for asbestos exposure cases.
Logan Industries v. Cargotech (11/20/20) – Texas Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus letter that urged the court to review a lower court decision that created an exceedingly high bar for proving breach of contract claims in a business context.
Utah
Amicus:
Gardner v. Norman (8/23/24) – Utah Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that recovery of medical expenses in tort cases should be based on prices actually paid for medical services, instead of chargemaster rates/list prices.
Virginia
Amicus:
Highlander v. Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (3/22/24) – Virginia Court of Appeals
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that the “open fields” doctrine does not allow for the warrantless seizure of personal property and that small businesses will suffer if government can seize property without a warrant or exigent circumstances.
Washington
Amicus:
Petter v. Washington Department of Revenue (4/9/26) – Superior Court for Klickitat Co.
سԹ filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Washington’s new income tax, which will be harmful to many small businesses organized as pass-through entities.
Amicus:
Fode v. Department of Ecology (3/18/26) – Washington Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that state law requires the Department to provide landowners with technical assistance regarding water rights before issuing penalties.
West Virginia
Amicus:
Speedway v. Jarrett (6/28/21) – West Virginia Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief arguing that employers are not insurers for the personal conduct of their employees outside of work and are not empowered to police employees off-duty.
Wisconsin
Amicus:
Becker v. Dane County (2/15/22) – Wisconsin Supreme Court
سԹ filed an amicus brief urging that Wisconsin revisit its nondelegation doctrine precedent and revitalize a strong nondelegation doctrine.
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce v. Evers (11/4/20) – Wisconsin Circuit Court; (3/1/21) – Wisconsin Court of Appeals; (11/29/21) – Wisconsin Supreme Court
سԹ filed three amicus briefs in opposition to a Wisconsin rule that would provide the health department with authority to release information related to positive employee COVID tests at business establishments.