On July 24, 2026, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (District I) denied the City of Milwaukee’s petition for leave to appeal a temporary injunction that has prevented enforcement of a new late-night curfew on food trucks. The order, signed by Judges Colón, Geenen, and Petrashek in case 2026AP1510-LV (Abdallah Ismail v. City of Milwaukee), concluded that the city’s petition failed to meet the criteria for a permissive appeal of a nonfinal circuit-court order.
The practical result is straightforward—downtown Milwaukee food trucks can continue operating until 1 a.m., the prior rule, while the underlying lawsuit proceeds.
How the fight started
In April 2026 the Milwaukee Common Council unanimously approved (and Mayor Cavalier Johnson signed) an ordinance that moved the closing time for food trucks in the downtown “Time-Limited Food Peddler Zone” from 1 a.m. to 10 p.m. (and to 11 p.m. near Burnham Park). The stated purpose was public safety—reducing large late-night crowds in entertainment districts such as Water Street that had seen shootings and other violence.
Food-truck operators immediately objected. Abdallah Ismail, owner of the Fatty Patty (operating under ASYA, LLC), said the bulk of his Water Street revenue—historically 70–80 percent—came after 10 p.m. Closing three hours earlier would, he argued, effectively destroy the location’s viability and force layoffs.
On May 7 the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) sued on Ismail’s behalf. The complaint alleged the ordinance violated the Wisconsin Constitution’s protections for the right to earn a living and equal protection (Article I, Section 1). WILL contended the rule was both irrational—there was no evidence food trucks themselves caused violence—and discriminatory, because nearby brick-and-mortar bars and restaurants faced no comparable hour restrictions. The group also pointed to statements by supporters suggesting the real motive was protecting established restaurants from competition.
Circuit court blocks the rule
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Jean M. Kies first issued a temporary restraining order on May 8, then, after an evidentiary hearing, granted a formal temporary injunction on June 22. In a detailed decision she found the city had offered “no proof—just naked conclusions” that earlier food-truck closures would reduce crowds or deter violence. The court noted the complete absence of evidence that food trucks acted as a “magnet” for underage drinkers or under-curfew individuals involved in crime, and emphasized the unequal treatment of mobile vendors versus fixed establishments.
Judge Kies concluded that Ismail had shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits, irreparable harm (lost revenue and goodwill that municipal immunity would make hard to recover in damages), and that the balance of equities favored preserving the status quo of 1 a.m. closing while the case continued.
Appeals court declines to intervene
The city sought permission to appeal the nonfinal injunction order and asked the Court of Appeals to stay both the injunction and further circuit-court proceedings. The appellate panel rejected the petition, citing Wisconsin statutes and precedent that strictly limit interlocutory appeals. The temporary injunction therefore remains in force.
WILL attorney Dan Lennington, who has been involved in the litigation, summarized the outcome on X: “Milwaukee food truck ban still blocked. Wisconsin Court of Appeals just denied the City’s attempt to resurrect the unconstitutional law. Food truck freedom!”
What comes next
The case now returns to the circuit court for full litigation on the merits. A permanent resolution, whether the ordinance is ultimately struck down, narrowed, or upheld, will depend on further evidence and legal argument. In the meantime, Milwaukee’s downtown food trucks keep their later hours, and the city’s effort to impose the 10 p.m. curfew remains on hold.
The dispute highlights a recurring tension in cities nationwide—how far local governments may go in regulating mobile vendors in the name of public safety versus the constitutional and practical limits on restrictions that single out one form of small business while leaving competitors largely untouched.
