The Wisconsin Supreme Court normally sits in its main hearing room in the East Wing of the Wisconsin State Capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin. Since 1993, the court has also travelled, once or twice a year, to another part of the state to hear several cases as part of its "Justice on Wheels" program. The purpose of this program is to give the people of Wisconsin a better opportunity to understand the operations of the state supreme court and the court system.[3]
Justices
The court is composed of seven justices who are elected in statewide, non-partisan elections. Each justice is elected for a ten-year term. Importantly, only one justice may be elected in any year. This avoids the sudden shifts in jurisprudence commonly seen in other state supreme courts, where the court composition can be radically shifted if two or three justices are simultaneously targeted for an electoral challenge based on their views on controversial issues. In the event of a vacancy on the court, the governor has the power to appoint an individual to the vacancy, but that justice must then stand for election in the first year in which no other justice's term expires.
After passage of a state constitutional amendment on April 7, 2015, the chief justice of the court is elected for a term of 2 years by the vote of a majority of the justices then serving on the court, although the justice so elected may decline the appointment. Prior to that amendment, the justice with the longest continuous service on the court served as the chief justice.
While the court is officially nonpartisan, its members are generally regarded as having consistent ideological positions. Justices Dallet, Karofsky, Protasiewicz, and Ann Walsh Bradley are frequently described as liberals, while Justices Ziegler, Hagedorn, and Rebecca Bradley are described as conservatives. Liberal justices and candidates are endorsed and electorally supported by the Democratic Party and related organizations, and conservatives have an equivalent relationship with the Republican Party. Justice Hagedorn was considered the court's "swing justice" prior to Justice Protasiewicz's investiture; while his campaign was supported by Republican organizations and he previously served as chief legal counsel to Republican governor Scott Walker, he has sided with the liberal justices in several noteworthy cases.[4]
In 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., holding 5–4 that a campaign expenditure of over $3 million by a corporate litigant to influence the election of a judge to the court that would hear its case, although legal, was an "extreme fact" that created a "probability of bias", thus requiring the judge to be recused from hearing the case.[6] Wisconsin had adopted a limit of $1,000 for campaign contributions to judges, but it was unclear when mandatory recusal was required.[7] The League of Women Voters petitioned the Court to require a judge to recuse himself or herself from a proceeding if the judge had received any campaign contributions from a party or entity involved in it.[7] Instead, during its 2009–2010 term and by a 4–3 vote, the Court adopted a rule that recusal is not required based solely on any endorsement or receipt of a lawful campaign contribution from a party or entity involved in the proceeding, and that a judge does not need to seek recusal where it would be based solely on a party in the case sponsoring an independent expenditure or issue advocacy communication in favor of the judge. Voting in favor of the new rule were Prosser, Gableman, Roggensack, and Ziegler. Voting against were Abrahamson, Crooks, and A. Bradley. In the opinion of Justice Roggensack, "when a judge is disqualified from participation, the votes of all who voted to elect that judge are cancelled for all issues presented by that case. Accordingly, recusal rules . . . must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest." In dissenting, Justice A. Bradley called the decision "a dramatic change to our judicial code of ethics" and took issue with the majority's decision to adopt a rule "proposed by special interest groups."[7]
The issue of recusal became a major controversy again after the 2023 judicial election, but with the ideological positions reversed. Conservatives justice Rebecca Bradley and chief justice Annette Ziegler abandoned their previous position, which favored narrow recusal rules, and instead urged a broad recusal standard after Wisconsin elected a liberal majority to the Court in 2023.[8] Their demand was targeted at the newest justice, Janet Protasiewicz, and was paired with a threat from the Republican Assembly speaker to begin an impeachment. At issue was the allegation that Protasiewicz had pre-judged pending redistricting cases, because she had remarked during the campaign that Wisconsin's legislative maps were "rigged". Several complaints were also filed against Protasiewicz with the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, but the commission quickly dismissed those complaints.[9]
Confrontation
On June 13, 2011, a confrontation between Justices David Prosser, Jr. and Ann Walsh Bradley occurred in Bradley's chambers. Prosser, Bradley, and the other justices (except N. Patrick Crooks) were discussing the following day's decision that would overturn a ruling blocking the Wisconsin collective bargaining law. Witnesses stated that the incident happened after Prosser had stated that he'd lost all confidence in the leadership of Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.[10] Bradley later accused Prosser of putting her in a chokehold.[10] Prosser denied the allegations and asked for "a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it".[10] The incident was investigated by the Dane County Sheriff's Office. Witnesses to the incident disagreed about what had happened[10] and neither Prosser nor Bradley was charged by a special prosecutor.[11] Ethics charges brought against Prosser based on Bradley's allegations were never adjudicated due to the lack of a quorum on the Court after recusals.[12]
Campaign expense
Although elections to the Wisconsin Supreme Court are nonpartisan, campaigns for the seats sometimes generate partisan fervor. As a result, elections have become increasingly expensive; growing from $4.3 million spent in the 2016 race[13] to $45 million in the 2023 race.[14]
Chief justice amendment
A 2015 constitutional amendment changed the process by which the chief justice is selected. From 1889 to 2015, the chief justice was simply the longest continually-serving member of the court. The 2015 amendment changed the chief justice role to a two year term, elected by a majority of the members of the court. Opponents recognized this as an attempt by the Republican legislature to empower the conservative majority on the court by removing liberal justice Shirley Abrahamson from the chief justice role. Republicans in the legislature said it was an effort to promote democracy on the court, following several years of contentious deliberations.[15]
Immediately after passage of the amendment, the conservative members of the court elected Patience Roggensack to replace Abrahamson as chief justice. Abrahmson sued in federal court, but eventually abandoned the effort.[16]
In May 2020, in response to a lawsuit brought by the Republican-led state legislature, the Court ruled 4–3 to strike down an order issued by Secretary-designate of the Department of Health Services Andrea Palm, which extended the stay-at-home order previously issued by Governor Tony Evers.[18] The portion of the order that kept all K-12 schools closed for the remainder of the school year remained in effect.[19] The deciding vote to strike down the Secretary-designate's order was by Daniel Kelly, who had recently lost his bid for re-election to Jill Karofsky.[20]
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has played an increasingly important role in the redistricting process in Wisconsin. The Court was first involved in redistricting in the 1890s, when they struck down two versions of state legislative maps and set standards for equal representation and district boundaries which the Legislature largely adhered to until the guidance was superseded by federal guidance in the 20th century.[21] The Court next played an important role in the 1950s redistricting, when the Legislature passed two redistricting plans in consecutive sessions (1951 & 1953). At that time, the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the Legislature to enact two redistricting plans for the same census.[22] The following decade, the Court took the extraordinary step of drawing the map themselves, in 1964, after the Governor and Legislature had failed to come to an agreement.[23]
After the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 and related UnitedStates SupremeCourt cases, the Wisconsin Supreme Court backed off from redistricting issues and deferred to federal courts. That changed after the United States Supreme Court case of Gill v. Whitford, in 2018, which significantly reduced federal jurisdiction of gerrymandering cases. In 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court took on redistricting again. But the state court lacked many of the laws, procedures, and precedents of the federal courts which had settled redistricting cases for the previous four decades. In their absence, the Wisconsin Supreme Court struggled with the case, which was further exacerbated by a significant partisan split between the court's three conservatives and three liberals.[24]
Going into the 2022 case, Wisconsin's legislative map had among the worst partisan biases in the country.[25][26] At the outset of the case, the court's three conservatives, along with the swing vote Hagedorn, established a novel legal concept that all parties should pursue the "least changes" to the existing map necessary to bring it into compliance with the applicable laws.[27] The Republican legislature and the Democratic governor each submitted map proposals. The court quickly found that Evers' proposal actually best adhered to the court's "least changes" guidance, nevertheless, the three conservatives who had established that guidance voted against his plan. The plan was adopted by the court's three liberals, A. Bradley, Dallet, and Karofsky, with the swing vote of Hagedorn.[28]
Wisconsin's Republican legislature, however, appealed the case to the UnitedStates SupremeCourt, which threw out the Wisconsin decision in a shadow docket opinion.[29] The U.S. SupremeCourt stated that the adhoc process adopted by the Wisconsin SupremeCourt had failed to give proper consideration to questions of racial gerrymandering under the federal Voting Rights Act. Without further deliberation, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's action, Hagedorn switched his vote to the Republican plan, although it suffered from an identical process defect. The Republican legislative map was then utilized for the 2022 elections.[30]
Justices are elected in nonpartisan elections for ten-year terms. Only one justice may be elected in any year. Justices are elected in the spring election, being the first Tuesday in April. If there are more than two candidates, a spring primary is held on the third Tuesday in February.
Conservative Justice Michael Gableman did not seek re-election in 2018.[33] Two county judges, Rebecca Dallet and Michael Screnock, ran for the open seat.[34][35] A third candidate, Tim Burns, did not make it to the general election in the February 20 primary. The progressive Dallet was elected in the April 3 general election.[36]
Incumbent progressive Justice Shirley Abrahamson, who had served on the court for 42 years, did not seek re-election in 2019. Conservative Appeals Court Judge Brian Hagedorn was elected to succeed her in the April 2 general election over fellow Appeals Court Judge Lisa Neubauer and took her seat on the court on August 1, 2019.
On April 7, 2020, progressive Jill Karofsky defeated conservative incumbent Daniel Kelly as Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The election was held during the coronavirus pandemic, forcing many voters to choose between voting by mail, waiting in long lines for hours, or not participating at all.[37]
Conservative Justice Patience Roggensack did not seek re-election in 2023. Former conservative Justice Daniel Kelly faced progressive Judge Janet Protasiewicz on April 4, 2023, and lost.[38] Judges Jennifer Dorow and Everett Mitchell also ran, but they were eliminated in the February 21 primary.[39][40] The race attracted widespread media attention, as it would determine the ideological balance of the court for at least the next two years. Protasiewicz's victory could determine how the court rules on future cases involving abortion, voting rights, and labor rights,[41] while redistricting was decided on in Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission.
"Wisconsin", Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School, OCLC1078785565, Court decisions freely available to the public online, in a consistent format, digitized from the collection of the Harvard Law Library
Jon P. Wilcox is an American lawyer and retired judge. He was a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court for 15 years, appointed by Governor Tommy G. Thompson in 1992 and leaving office in 2007. Prior to his time on the Supreme Court, he served for 13 years as a Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge, including seven years as Chief Judge of the 6th Judicial Administrative District of Wisconsin Circuit Courts. Earlier, he represented Green Lake and Waushara counties in the Wisconsin State Assembly as a Republican.
Ann Walsh Bradley is an American lawyer and jurist, and the longest currently-serving justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. She was elected to the Supreme Court in 1995 and was re-elected in 2005 and 2015. She has announced she will not run for re-election again; her term expires July 31, 2025. She previously served ten years as a Wisconsin circuit court judge in Marathon County, Wisconsin.
Neil Patrick Crooks was an American lawyer. He was a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 1996 until his death in 2015. He was appointed as a county judge by a Democratic governor, later professing conservatism as a Supreme Court candidate in 1995 and 1996. In his later years, Crooks gained notice as a perceived judicial moderate and swing vote on a court otherwise divided into two ideological blocs.
David Thomas Prosser Jr. was an American lawyer, jurist, and Republican politician from Appleton, Wisconsin. He was a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 1998 until his retirement in 2016. Prior to joining the court, he served as the 72nd speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly, during the 1995–1996 term, after serving in the Assembly since 1979. Prior to becoming speaker, he led the Republican Assembly caucus for three terms as minority leader.
Patience Drake "Pat" Roggensack is a retired American attorney and jurist. She served as the 26th chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 2015 to 2021. Concurrently, she served for 20 years on the high court, from 2003 through 2023.
Annette Kingsland Ziegler is an American jurist serving as chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court since May 2021. She has been a member of the court since 2007, and is generally regarded as part of its conservative wing. Ziegler served as a Wisconsin circuit court judge in Washington County from 1997 to 2007.
Robin Joseph Vos is an American businessman and Republican politician and the 79th speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly, serving in that role since 2013. He has been a member of the Assembly since 2005, representing most of the southern half of Racine County. Vos was also president of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
JoAnne Fishman Kloppenburg is an American lawyer who has served as a judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals since 2012 in the Madison-based District IV. Kloppenburg was previously an assistant attorney general in the Wisconsin Department of Justice and was a candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2011 and 2016.
Rebecca Lynn Grassl Bradley is an American lawyer, and justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, serving since 2015. She has been a state judge in Wisconsin since 2012. She was appointed to the Supreme Court by Governor Scott Walker in 2015, and won election to a 10-year term in 2016.
Brian Keith Hagedorn is an American lawyer and a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, serving since 2019. Prior to his election to the supreme court, he served four years as a judge on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
Daniel Kelly is an American attorney and former judge who served as a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice from August 1, 2016, through July 31, 2020.
Rebecca Frank Dallet is an American lawyer and a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Prior to her 2018 election, she served ten years as a Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge in Milwaukee County. Earlier in her career she worked as a prosecutor and appointed court official.
Jill Judith Karofsky is an American attorney who has served as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court since 2020. Karofsky served as a Wisconsin Circuit Court judge in Dane County from 2017 until her 2020 election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The 2015 Wisconsin Spring Election was held in the U.S. state of Wisconsin on April 7, 2015. There was a contested election for justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, as well as several other nonpartisan local and judicial elections and an amendment to the Constitution of Wisconsin to change the process for selection of the chief justice of the State Supreme Court. In addition, the ballot contained a special election to fill a vacancy in the 20th State Senate district. The 2015 Wisconsin Spring Primary was held February 17, 2015.
The 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election was held on Tuesday, April 4, 2023, to elect a justice to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for a ten-year term. Milwaukee County circuit judge Janet Protasiewicz defeated former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Daniel Kelly, effectively flipping the ideological balance of the court from a conservative to liberal majority.
Janet Claire Protasiewicz is an American attorney and jurist from Wisconsin who has served as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court since August 2023. Protasiewicz was elected to the court in the 2023 election, after previously serving as a Milwaukee County circuit court judge in from 2014 to 2023 and as an assistant district attorney in Milwaukee for 26 years.
The 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election will be held on Tuesday, April 1, 2025, to elect a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court for a ten-year term. The incumbent justice, Ann Walsh Bradley, is retiring after 30 years on the court. Although the Wisconsin Supreme Court justices are considered nonpartisan, Bradley has identified as a liberal and has voted with the liberal 4–3 majority on the court, meaning the outcome of this election will decide the ideological majority of the court for at least the next year.
Impeachment in Wisconsin is the main process by which the Wisconsin Legislature can bring charges and decide whether to remove state officers from their positions. A simple majority of the Wisconsin State Assembly can impeach an officer, after which the Wisconsin Senate acts as the court of trial, where a two-thirds majority is required to convict. In the event of a conviction, the punishment may be removal from office or removal and disqualification to hold state office.
Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission was a December 2023 decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court which struck down the state Senate and Assembly district maps of the Wisconsin Legislature. The decision held that the Constitution of Wisconsin—in sections 4 and 5 of Article IV—requires "legislative districts [to] be composed of physically adjoining territory." In a 4–3 opinion written by justice Jill Karofsky, the Court ordered new maps to be drawn ahead of the 2024 Wisconsin elections.
James Roberts Troupis is an American lawyer and Republican political operative from Dane County, Wisconsin. He was an attorney for Donald Trump's 2020 presidential campaign, and was involved in the efforts to overturn the election results, including the plan to produce fraudulent electoral votes to supplant the legitimate electoral votes at the January 6 certification. As a result of his involvement in the fraudulent elector plot, he has been charged with conspiracy to utter as legitimate a forged document.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
