And the judges made clear that volunteering to become foster parents does not mean surrendering protections guaranteed to every other American.
Court: Foster Parents Still Have Constitutional Rights
At the center of the dispute was a basic question: Can the government condition participation in the foster-care system on giving up constitutional rights inside a private home?
Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge Maria Lazar provided a straightforward answer.
The foster parents, Lazar wrote, “did not waive their constitutional rights by volunteering to serve as foster parents.”
That conclusion strikes directly at the premise behind the restrictions challenged by the Laffertys.
The couple had been required to comply with rules governing how firearms and ammunition could be stored inside their residence. Among the contested provisions was a requirement that firearms remain unloaded.
The appeals court found that restriction could not survive constitutional scrutiny under the Second Amendment and Wisconsin’s state constitution.
Government attorneys attempted to defend the policy by pointing to historical regulations involving the storage of gunpowder.
That argument failed to persuade the court.
The judges concluded that historical gunpowder regulations did not provide a sufficient constitutional foundation for the modern restriction imposed on foster families.
The decision stretches across 119 pages, reflecting the extensive legal fight surrounding a policy that affected what foster parents could do with legally owned firearms inside their own homes.
The Wisconsin Department of Children and Families is headed by Secretary Jeff Pertl, who was appointed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.
Judges Call Out Washington County’s Shifting Position
The constitutional ruling was not the only setback for government officials.
The appeals court also took issue with Washington County’s conduct as the case worked its way through the legal system.
According to the court, the county “moved the goal posts” during the litigation.
That became significant after officials altered portions of the disputed foster-care firearms policy while the lawsuit was still underway.
The county then argued that those changes undermined or eliminated portions of the Laffertys’ case.
The judges were not persuaded that government officials could simply change the challenged rules and escape judicial review so easily.
The Washington Times also reported that the court criticized the county over delays in informing judges that certain restrictions had been abandoned.
For the Laffertys, what began as a disagreement over firearm storage turned into a years-long constitutional battle involving both state and county officials.
Their victory could now resonate far beyond their own household.
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said the ruling strengthens the rights of law-abiding Americans who also choose to become foster parents.
Foster-Care Gun Battles Spread Beyond Wisconsin
Wisconsin is hardly alone in confronting disputes over firearms and foster families.
Similar cases have emerged elsewhere as states attempt to balance foster-child safety regulations against the constitutional rights of adults participating in foster-care programs.
In Missouri, foster parents James and Julie Attaway challenged requirements governing firearm storage while their foster child was inside their home.
Illinois has faced its own legal fight involving comparable restrictions, although a federal judge there recently reached a different conclusion and sided with the state’s regulations.
Those battles are unfolding against a dramatically different Second Amendment landscape following the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Bruen changed how courts evaluate gun regulations.
Rather than allowing governments to defend restrictions primarily through arguments about public policy and competing interests, the Supreme Court instructed courts to examine whether firearm regulations are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.
That puts pressure on governments to identify meaningful historical precedents when defending modern firearms restrictions.
In the Lafferty case, Wisconsin officials could not convince the appeals court that the historical evidence justified the challenged rule.
A Warning to Government Agencies
The Wisconsin decision carries implications that extend beyond one foster family or one county.
Americans routinely participate in government-regulated programs, obtain professional licenses and volunteer for services administered by state agencies.
The Lafferty ruling reinforces a critical principle: choosing to participate in such a program does not automatically give government officials unlimited authority over constitutional rights.
That principle becomes especially important in foster care.
Families willing to bring vulnerable children into their homes already undergo extensive screening, inspections and regulation. Requiring those families to choose between serving children and exercising constitutional protections raises questions that courts around the country are increasingly being asked to answer.
Washington County’s shifting policies also demonstrate the danger agencies face when they rewrite disputed regulations in the middle of constitutional litigation.
Instead of ending the controversy, those changes became another issue scrutinized by the court.
For Second Amendment advocates, the ruling offers another example of Bruen reshaping gun litigation at the state and local levels.
For government agencies, it delivers an equally important message.
Administrative rules do not exist above the Constitution.
And for Brian and Katie Lafferty, the ruling finally brings a major victory after years of fighting over whether opening their home to foster children required them to sacrifice rights they possessed before becoming foster parents.
The appeals court’s answer was unmistakable:
It did not.
