Wisconsin Supreme Court

Wisconsin Supreme Court
Court Information
Justices: 7
Founded: 1848
Location: Madison
Salary
Associates: $196,102[1]
Judicial Selection
Method: *Nonpartisan election
Term: 10 years
Active justices
Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, Brian Hagedorn, Jill Karofsky, Janet Claire Protasiewicz, Annette Ziegler

Founded in 1848, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is the state's court of last resort and has seven judgeships. The current chief of the court is Annette Ziegler. In 2018, the court decided 707 cases.^[2]

As of April 2024, six judges on the court were elected in nonpartisan elections and one was appointed by a Republican governor.

The court is located in the State Capitol Building in Madison, Wisconsin and proceedings are held in the Wisconsin Supreme Court Hearing Room.^[3]

In Wisconsin, state supreme court justices are elected in nonpartisan elections. There are 13 states that use this selection method. To read more about the nonpartisan election of judges, click here.

Wisconsin has a divided government where neither party holds a trifecta. The Democratic Party controls the office of governor, while the Republican Party controls both chambers of the state legislature.

On April 11, 2024, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley announced she would not seek another term in 2025. The Washington Post's Patrick Marley wrote that the retirement "sets the stage for an intense race for control of the court two years after candidates, political parties and interest groups spent more than $50 million in the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history." Democrats won a 4-3 majority on the court following the 2023 election of Janet Claire Protasiewicz. Bradley is a member of the court's Democratic majority.^[4]

Jurisdiction

See also: Judicial selection in Wisconsin

The supreme court is the highest appellate court in the state. It has discretionary appellate jurisdiction over all courts in the state. It may also hear original actions and proceedings. The constitution does not place limits on the court's original jurisdiction. The court may issue a Writ as needed in its jurisdiction.^[5]

The court is also in charge of judicial administrative functions. It sets rules for judicial proceedings. It has regulatory authority over the lawyers who practice law in the state.^[6]

The following text from Article VII, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution covers the organization and jurisdiction of the court:

Justices

The table below lists the current justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, their political party, and when they assumed office.

Judicial selection

See also: Judicial selection in Wisconsin

The seven justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court are elected in statewide nonpartisan elections. Judges serve ten-year terms, and to remain on the court, they must run for re-election after their term expires. Only one seat may be elected in any year, and more than two candidates for each seat must file to have a primary.^[9][10]

Qualifications

To serve on the supreme court, a judge must be:

• licensed to practice law in Wisconsin for a minimum of five years immediately prior to election or appointment^[11]

Chief justice

The chief justice of the court is selected by peer vote for a term of two years.

Vacancies

See also: How vacancies are filled in state supreme courts

In the event of a vacancy on the court, the governor has the power and duty to appoint an individual to the vacancy. The governor screens judicial applicants using an advisory council on judicial selection. The council recommends three to five candidates to the governor, although the governor is not bound by their recommendations. The appointed justice must then stand for election in the first subsequent year in which no other justice's term expires.^[10][9][12]

The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.

Elections

See also: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections

2025

Main article: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2025

The term of one Wisconsin Supreme Court justice will expire on July 31, 2025. The seat is up for nonpartisan election on April 1, 2025.

Candidates and results

General election

Nonpartisan primary election

The primary election was canceled. Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel advanced from the primary for Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Judges not on the ballot

• Ann Walsh Bradley

2023

Main article: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2023

Candidates and results

General election

Nonpartisan primary election

Justices not on the ballot

• Patience Roggensack

2020

Main article: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2020

Candidates and results

General election

Nonpartisan primary election

2019

Main article: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2019

Candidates and results

General election

Justices not on the ballot

• Shirley Abrahamson

2018

Main article: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2018

Candidates and results

General election

Nonpartisan primary election

Justices not on the ballot

• Michael Gableman

2017

Main article: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2017

Candidates

■ Annette Ziegler (Incumbent/Unopposed)

2016

Main article: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2016

Candidates

■ JoAnne Kloppenburg
■ Rebecca Bradley

Kloppenburg and Bradley faced each other in the April 5 general election.

Defeated in primary

■ Martin Joseph Donald

Withdrawn

■ Claude Covelli^[13]

General election results

Wisconsin Supreme Court, Rebecca Bradley's Seat, 2016
Candidate	Vote %	Votes
Rebecca Bradley Incumbent	52.35%	1,024,892
JoAnne Kloppenburg	47.47%	929,377
Write-in votes	0.19%	3,678
Total Votes (100% Reporting)	1,957,947
Source: Wisconsin Government Accountability Board Official Results

Primary results

The primary election was held February 16, 2016.

Primary election
Ideology[14]	Candidate	Percentage	Votes
	Liberal	Martin Joseph Donald	12.1%	68,746
	Liberal	JoAnne Kloppenburg	43.2%	244,729
	Conservative	Rebecca Bradley	44.7%	252,932
			Vote Total:	566,407

3474 of 3474 precincts reporting
Source: Wisconsin Government Accountability Board Official Results

2015

See also: Wisconsin judicial elections, 2015

General election, 2015
Candidate	Vote %	Votes
Ann Walsh Bradley Incumbent	58.1%	471,866
James Daley	41.9%	340,632
Total Votes	813,200

^[15][16]

2013

See also: Wisconsin judicial elections, 2013

Candidate	Incumbency	Position	Primary Vote	Election Vote
Patience Roggensack
Ed Fallone	No		29.8%	42.47%
Vince Megna	No		6.3%

Caseloads

The table below details the number of cases filed with the court and the number of dispositions (decisions) the court reached in each year.^[2][18]

Wisconsin Supreme Court caseload data
Year	Filings	Dispositions
2023	573	499
2022	624	596
2021	658	596
2020	558	544
2019	609	712
2018	737	748
2017	734	704
2016	642	600
2015	732	836
2014	792	860
2013	807	732
2012	784	824
2011	809	681
2010	717	762
2009	777	740
2008	824	812
2007	810	826

Analysis

Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters (2021)

See also: Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters

In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters, a study on how state supreme court justices decided the cases that came before them. Our goal was to determine which justices ruled together most often, which frequently dissented, and which courts featured the most unanimous or contentious decisions.

The study tracked the position taken by each state supreme court justice in every case they decided in 2020, then tallied the number of times the justices on the court ruled together. We identified the following types of justices:

• We considered two justices opinion partners if they frequently concurred or dissented together throughout the year.
• We considered justices a dissenting minority if they frequently opposed decisions together as a -1 minority.
• We considered a group of justices a determining majority if they frequently determined cases by a +1 majority throughout the year.
• We considered a justice a lone dissenter if he or she frequently dissented alone in cases throughout the year.

Summary of cases decided in 2020

• Number of justices: 7
• Number of cases: 89
• Percentage of cases with a unanimous ruling: 59.6%% (53)
• Justice most often writing the majority opinion: Justice Brian Hagedorn and Justice Rebecca Dallet (8)
• Per curiam decisions: 43
• Concurring opinions: 27
• Justice with most concurring opinions: Justice Rebecca Bradley and Justice Daniel Kelly (6)
• Dissenting opinions: 49
• Justice with most dissenting opinions: Justice Brian Hagedorn, Justice Rebecca Bradley, and Justice Rebecca Dallet (9)

For the study's full set of findings in Wisconsin, click here.

Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship (2020)

See also: Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship

Last updated: June 15, 2020

In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country as of June 15, 2020.

The study presented Confidence Scores that represented our confidence in each justice's degree of partisan affiliation, based on a variety of factors. This was not a measure of where a justice fell on the political or ideological spectrum, but rather a measure of how much confidence we had that a justice was or had been affiliated with a political party. To arrive at confidence scores we analyzed each justice's past partisan activity by collecting data on campaign finance, past political positions, party registration history, as well as other factors. The five categories of Confidence Scores were:

• Strong Democrat
• Mild Democrat
• Indeterminate^[19]
• Mild Republican
• Strong Republican

We used the Confidence Scores of each justice to develop a Court Balance Score, which attempted to show the balance among justices with Democratic, Republican, and Indeterminate Confidence Scores on a court. Courts with higher positive Court Balance Scores included justices with higher Republican Confidence Scores, while courts with lower negative Court Balance Scores included justices with higher Democratic Confidence Scores. Courts closest to zero either had justices with conflicting partisanship or justices with Indeterminate Confidence Scores.^[20]

Wisconsin had a Court Balance Score of 4.29, indicating Republican control of the court. In total, the study found that there were 15 states with Democrat-controlled courts, 27 states with Republican-controlled courts, and eight states with Split courts. The map below shows the court balance score of each state.

Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores (2012)

See also: Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores of state supreme court justices, 2012

In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan outlook of state supreme court justices in their paper, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns." A score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology while scores below 0 were more liberal. The state Supreme Court of Wisconsin was given a campaign finance score (CFscore), which was calculated for judges in October 2012. At that time, Wisconsin received a score of 0.42. Based on the justices selected, Wisconsin was the 11th most conservative court. The study was based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges, or—in the absence of elections—the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study was not a definitive label of a justice but rather an academic gauge of various factors.^[21]

The following table lists all seven Wisconsin Supreme Court justices and their ideology scores:

State Supreme Court Ideology
State	Justice	Ideology Score
Wisconsin	Shirley Abrahamson	-1.29
Wisconsin	Ann Bradley	-0.39
Wisconsin	Patrick Crooks	0.59
Wisconsin	Patience Roggensack	0.67
Wisconsin	Annette Ziegler	1.25
Wisconsin	David Prosser	0.77
Wisconsin	Mike Gableman	1.35

Noteworthy cases

The following are noteworthy cases heard before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. For a full list of opinions published by the court, click here. Know of a case we should cover here? Let us know by emailing us.

• Wisconsin Supreme Court finds state legislative maps in violation of the state constitution (Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2023AP1399-OA)	Click for summary→
In a 4-3 decision on Dec. 22, 2023, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the state’s legislative maps violated the state constitution and ordered the state to draw new maps for the 2024 elections. The justice wrote the following in their majority opinion:[22] “ We hold that the contiguity requirements in Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 mean what they say: Wisconsin's state legislative districts must be composed of physically adjoining territory. The constitutional text and our precedent support this common-sense interpretation of contiguity. Because the current state legislative districts contain separate, detached territory and therefore violate the constitution's contiguity requirements, we enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission from using the current legislative maps in future elections ... Because we enjoin the current state legislative district maps from future use, remedial maps must be drawn prior to the 2024 elections.[23][8] ” The original petitioners argued that Wisconsin’s legislative districts violated multiple provisions of the state constitution, including equal protection, freedom of speech and association, separation of powers, and contiguous legislative districts. The state's legislative maps were ordered to be enacted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April 2022 after the governor vetoed them and the state legislature failed to override that veto.[22]

• Supreme Court rules that voter drop boxes may not be used (Richard Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2022AP000091)	Click for summary→
On June 28, 2021, two Wisconsin voters filed suit in Waukesha County Circuit Court, challenging the legality of guidance by the Wisconsin Elections Commission that allowed for the use of absentee/mail-in ballot drop. On January 13, 2022, the circuit court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and invalidated the guidance. The Wisconsin Elections Commission appealed, and the intermediate appellate court stayed the circuit court's order through the February 15, 2022, primary election. The plaintiffs petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to vacate the stay. On January 28, 2022, the high court declined to vacate the appellate court's stay. On February 2, 2022, the Wisconsin Elections Commission petitioned the state supreme court to extend the appellate court's stay through the April 5, 2022, election and resolution of the case on the merits. On February 11, 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a 4-3 ruling that allowed the circuit court's ban on absentee/mail-in ballot drop-boxes to take effect in the April 5, 2022, election.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many The court majority – comprising Justices Annette Ziegler, Rebecca Bradley, Patience Drake Roggensack, and Brian Hagedorn – said, "The record before us, including the timetable for making the necessary administrative changes as outlined by the court of appeals, indicates that the Commission can comply with the circuit court's order so as to ameliorate concerns about voter confusion and election administration before the April 5, 2022, election commences. The need for additional relief in the form of an extended stay has not been established."Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissented: "Once again, a majority of this court makes it more difficult to vote. With apparent disregard for the confusion it is causing, the majority provides next to no notice to municipal clerks, changing procedures at the eleventh hour and applying different procedures from those that applied to the primary in the very same election cycle." Justices Rebecca Frank Dallet and Jill J. Karofsky joined Bradley's dissent.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many On July 8, 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that state law prohibited the use of most drop boxes for returning absentee ballots.[24] Justice Rebecca Bradley, writing for the majority, said, "The key phrase is 'in person' and it must be assigned its natural meaning. 'In person' denotes 'bodily presence' and the concept of doing something personally." In a dissent, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote, "[The majority] has seemingly taken the opportunity to make it harder to vote or to inject confusion into the process whenever it has been presented with the opportunity. Without justification, [the majority] fans the flames of electoral doubt that threaten our democracy."[25]

• Supreme Court overturns Wisconsin's stay-at-home order (Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm, et al., 2020AP765-OA)	Click for summary→
On May 13, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Wisconsin Department of Health Services Secretary-designee Andrea Palm overstepped her authority when she extended the state's stay-at-home order through May 26 on behalf of Gov. Evers.[26] The decision made Wisconsin the first state to have a stay-at-home order overruled by a court. On April 21, 2020, the Wisconsin State Legislature filed suit in the state supreme court against Wisconsin Department of Health Services executives Andrea Palm and Julie Willems Van Dijk, alleging that they exceeded their authority in issuing Emergency Order 28, which extended the state's stay-at-home order to May 26, 2020. The legislature asked the court to enjoin the state from enforcing the stay-at-home order.[27] In a joint statement, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) said, "The governor has denied the people a voice through this unprecedented administrative overreach. Unfortunately, that leaves the legislature no choice but to ask the Supreme Court to rein in this obvious abuse of power. Wisconsinites deserve certainty, transparency, and a plan to end the constant stream of executive orders that are eroding both the economy and their liberty even as the state is clearly seeing a decline in COVID infections."[28] In the majority opinion, chief justice Patience Roggensack and justices Rebecca Bradley, Daniel Kelly, and Annette Ziegler wrote, "an agency cannot confer on itself the power to dictate the lives of law-abiding individuals as comprehensively as the order does without reaching beyond the executive branch's authority."[29][30]

For more information on this decision, see: Wisconsin stay-at-home order lawsuit and supreme court decision, 2020 (Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm, et al.)

• Supreme Court rules legislature's lame-duck session was constitutional (League of Women Voters v. Tony Evers, 2019AP559)	Click for summary→
In a 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on June 21, 2019, that the state legislature’s December 2018 lame duck session was constitutional. The League of Women Voters, plaintiffs in the case, had argued that the state’s constitution did not allow lawmakers to call an extraordinary session, making the December session and all actions resulting from it unconstitutional.[31] Judge Jessica Bradley authored the court’s majority opinion, stating: “We hold that extraordinary sessions do not violate the Wisconsin Constitution because the text of our constitution directs the Legislature to meet at times as ‘provided by law,’ and Wis. Stat. § 13.02(3) provides the law giving the Legislature the discretion to construct its work schedule, including preserving times for it to meet in an extraordinary session."[32] Judge Rebecca Dallet wrote a dissenting opinion: "The Legislature's ability to determine the rules of its proceedings pursuant to Article IV, Section 8 does not swallow up the meeting requirements of Article IV, Section 11 or allow it to wield unbridled power.”[32] During the December 2018 session, Wisconsin lawmakers voted to check the ability of the governor to remove Wisconsin from a multi-state lawsuit to challenge the Affordable Care Act, limit early voting in Wisconsin, and give more power over the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation to state lawmakers.[33] Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) responded to the ruling: “The state constitution is clear. It limits when the legislature can meet to pass laws. Our framers knew that no good comes from lawmakers rushing laws through at the last minute without public scrutiny. The lame-duck session proves the framers were right. This was an attack on the will of the people, our democracy, and our system of government.”[34] Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald called the decision “common sense.” “The Court upheld a previously non-controversial legislative practice used by both parties for decades to enact some of the most important laws in the state,” they wrote.[34]

• Supreme Court refuses to allow John Doe probe to restart (2015)      Judge(s):Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack, Annette Ziegler (Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Gregory A. Peterson, 2013AP2504-W)	Click for summary→
On December 2, 2015, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reasserted and clarified its July decision that the John Doe investigations were unconstitutional. The court barred attorney Francis Schmitz from continued involvement in the case.[35]

For more information on this decision, see Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Gregory A. Peterson

• Supreme Court halts John Doe investigation (2015)      Judge(s):David Prosser (Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Gregory A. Peterson, 2013AP296-OA)	Click for summary→
On July 16, 2015, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a 4-2 decision to officially halt the John Doe II investigation. The court combined three cases—Two Unnamed Petitioners v. Gregory A. Peterson and Francis D. Schmitz (Two Unnamed Petitioners); Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Gregory A. Peterson (Three Unnamed Petitioners); and Francis D. Schmitz v. Gregory A. Peterson (Schmitz v. Peterson)—into one, thereby simultaneously ruling on all three. In its ruling, the Supreme Court criticized Special Prosecutor Francis Schmitz's handling of the case and declared the actions of Chisholm and Schmitz were violations of the targets' First Amendment rights to political speech.[36][37]

For more information on this decision, see Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Gregory A. Peterson

• Justice recuses himself from DUI case (2015)

Click for summary→

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser voluntarily recused himself from a case before the high court. Allegedly, Prosser contacted a lab that conducted tests on specimens in a drunk driving case and asked questions specifically related to the case. Judges are barred by a judicial code of conduct from seeking out evidence on their own; they must make decisions based upon the evidence presented at trial. In the case of appellate judges, they are bound to review only the record, which includes evidence presented at pre-trial evidentiary hearings or trial. The case is important because it has the possibility of settling the question of when analysts must testify in DUI cases. With Prosser out, there are only six justices left to hear the case, meaning the decision could be a tie. The state's intermediate appellate court affirmed the underlying conviction, but said that this particular question arises often enough that the supreme court should settle the matter. It is likely that Justice Prosser was not behaving shady. According to Maurer School of Law Professor Charles Geyh, “ Well-intentioned, justice-seeking judges sometimes let their curiosity get the best of them and initiate investigations on their own, even though they should know better — meaning that the conduct is not necessarily nefarious.[8] ” —Charles Geyh, Law professor[38] Prosser recused himself from the case on February 27, 2015. Articles: Journal Sentinel, "David Prosser turned sleuth in OWI case before high court," April 3, 2015 Channel 3000, "State high court judge may have broken rule by quizzing lab," April 4, 2015

• Wisconsin man's privacy not violated by GPS tracking (2013)	Click for summary→
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the police did not violate a man's privacy after installing a GPS tracker in his car without his knowledge.[39][40] In 2007, James Brereton was a suspect in multiple burglaries in Walworth and Rock counties. Police impounded Brereton's vehicle during the course of investigating the crimes, and subsequently placed a GPS device in the car.[39] Before placing the GPS in the vehicle, law enforcement sought and were granted a warrant from the Walworth County Circuit Court.[41] Four days after the installation, Brereton was apprehended at a home that had just been burglarized, and incriminating evidence was found at the scene.[39] Brereton challenged the use of the GPS, seeking to suppress evidence found as a result of its use. Brereton and his attorney contended that real-time tracking was not covered by the warrant.[41] The Wisconsin Court of Appeals heard Brereton's challenge, but sided with law enforcement, noting that tracking is a reasonable execution of the warrant for GPS installation.[41] On February 6, 2013, the supreme court upheld the lower appeals court's ruling; the decision was 6 to 1 in favor of law enforcement.[39]

• Collective bargaining (2011)      Judge(s):Maryann Sumi	Click for summary→
In March 2011, Judge Maryann Sumi declared an injunction against publishing the Wisconsin Legislature's bill that eliminates collective bargaining for public employees. She found that legislators broke the state's Open Meetings Law, and therefore granted a restraining order against the Secretary of State's publishing of the bill.[42] On May 26, 2011, Sumi struck down the legislative actions leading to the bill eliminating public employee collective bargaining on the grounds that it violated the state's Open Meetings Law.[43][44] The state's Department of Justice and Department of Administration appealed the decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On June 14, 2011, the court overturned Sumi's ruling, saying in part that it had "usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the Legislature."[45] Read the text of the Supreme Court's ruling here: State of Wisconsin vs. Fitzgerald et al (June 14, 2011)

• Menasha Corporation (2008)	Click for summary→
The court ruled in favor of Menasha Corp in 2008. The ruling involved the collection of sales tax on computer software purchased by Menasha Corp. State law exempts custom software from sales and use tax, but the Wisconsin Department of Revenue claimed that the software purchased by the company was not custom software even though Menasha paid $17 million to customize it. The Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission initially ruled in favor of the company, but the state then appealed that decision to the Dane County Circuit Court where Judge Steven Ebert overturned the appeals commission ruling. The nonpartisan group, Legislative Fiscal Bureau, speculated that the ruling could mean that the state would lose $300 million in sales tax refunds to companies which had already paid similar claims and in diminished sales tax collections.[46]

• Access to government records cases	Click for summary→
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. Department of Administration. In 2009, the supreme court overturned a lower court ruling that said a collective bargaining agreement between a union and a state agency can forbid the agency from releasing names of public employees. WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex. In this June 2008 decision, the court ruled that three Wisconsin municipalities did not violate the Wisconsin Open Records Law when they failed to give a real estate listing service access to property assessment records in a computer database. The decision ran to 1,143 pages. State of Wisconsin v. Beaver Dam Area Development Corporation This 4-2 decision of the court from 2008 clarified when nominally private entities (in this case, the Beaver Dam Area Development Corporation) are subject to the public records and open meetings laws. Hempel v. City of Baraboo. In this 2005 decision, the court upheld a lower court order denying a records request made under the Wisconsin Open Records Law by Hal Hempel, a police officer of the Baraboo police department. Hempel sought records of an internal investigation conducted about allegations against him to the effect that he had harassed female officers in the department. The case centered on two key components of the Wisconsin Open Records law: Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) and Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(am) - and the statutory exceptions therein. Abrahamson dissented from the majority, and was joined by Bradley and Butler.

Historic cases

20th Century

• Risser v. Klauser (1997)
• Libertarian Party of Wisconsin v. Thompson (1996)
• Thompson v. Benson (1996)
• State v. Mitchell (1992)
• State v. Stevens (1985)
• State v. Yoder (1971)
• State ex rel. Drankovich v. Murphy (1945)
• John F. Jelke Company v. Emery (1927)
• Wait v. Pierce (1926)
• Borgnis and others v. The Falk Company (1911)
• Nunnemacher v. State (1906)

19th Century

• The State ex rel. Attorney General v. Cunningham and The State ex rel. Lamb v. Cunningham (1892)
• State ex rel. Weiss and others vs. District Board, etc. (1890)
• Brown v. Phillips and others (1888)
• Motion to admit Miss Lavinia Goodell to the Bar of this Court and Application of Miss Goodell (1875 & 1879)
• Attorney General v. Chicago & Northwestern Railroad Company (1874)
• Whiting v. Sheboygan & Fond du Lac Railroad Company (1870)
• Gillespie v. Palmer and others (1866)
• In re Kemp (1863)
• Chamberlain v. Milwaukee and Mississippi Railroad (1860)
• Attorney General ex rel. Bashford v. Barstow (1856)
• In Re: Booth (1854)

Ethics

The Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct sets forth ethical guidelines and principles for the conduct of judges and judicial candidates in Wisconsin. It consists of seven Supreme Court Rules:

• Rule 60.01: Definitions.
• Rule 60.02: A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
• Rule 60.03: A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities.
• Rule 60.04: A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.
• Rule 60.05: A judge shall so conduct the judge's extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
• Rule 60.06: A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate political activity.
• Rule 60.07: Applicability.^[47]

The full text of the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct can be found here.

Removal of judges

Court of Appeals judges in Wisconsin may be removed in one of four ways:

• By the Supreme Court, on the recommendation of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission.
• By a two-thirds vote of the Senate, upon impeachment by a majority vote of the Assembly.
• By the governor, upon address of both houses of the legislature with concurrence of two thirds of each house.
• By the voters through a recall election.

History of the court

Wisconsin became a territory in 1836. Before that time it was part of the Northwest Territory (1788-1800), the territory of Indiana (1800-1809), the territory of Illinois (1809-1818), and the territory of Michigan (1818-1836).^[48] The Wisconsin territory had three judges, appointed by the U.S. president, for lifetime terms with good behavior. The judges were responsible for riding circuit in the three territorial districts established by the territorial legislature and they met yearly in Madison to hear appeals as a supreme court. The 1836 Organic statute provided the supreme court and the district courts chancery and common law jurisdiction. From 1839 (when the court first met as a full bench), until 1847 the court tried 135 cases, two of which were carried to the United States Supreme Court.^[49] Wisconsin achieved statehood in 1848. The Wisconsin Constitution, still in use today, provided for five judges from five judicial districts elected for six-year terms. The judges presided over the circuit courts and met at least once per year as a supreme court. In 1853, the legislature instituted an official, separate supreme court, composed of three justices, to be elected statewide for ten-year terms.^[50]

In 1877, state voters passed the Wisconsin Question 1, Supreme Court Justices Amendment (1877) constitutional amendment providing for five justices on the supreme court. In 1903, voters passed the Wisconsin Question 1, Supreme Court Justices Amendment (April 1903), increasing the number of justices on the court to seven, where it remains today.^[51]

Procedures for choosing the chief justice changed for the state supreme court over time. Initially, the constitution called for statewide voters to elect a chief justice. In 1889, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justices Amendment, Question 1 (April 1889) constitutional amendment provided that the chief justice would be the longest-serving member of the court. In 2015, voters passed the Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Amendment, Question 1 (April 2015) providing that the chief justice would be elected by the justices of the court.^[52]

A series of constitutional amendments in 1978 modified the court further. One created the Wisconsin court of appeals, providing a second appellate court in the state, and thereby reducing the appellate burden on the supreme court. Another unified the state court system under the administrative authority of the supreme court. Other amendments created a disciplinary system for judges and justices, under the authority of the supreme court; and authorized the state legislature to set a mandatory retirement age of seventy or above for judges and justices.^[53]

In 2009, the legislature passed the "Impartial Justice Bill," creating public financing for justice of the supreme court elections. Before its passage, all seven of the current members of the state supreme court wrote a letter to the governor in support of the bill.^[54]

Former justices

This is a chronological list of former Wisconsin Supreme Court justices from 1848 to present.[55] Click "show" to expand.
Justice	Years on Court
Alexander W. Stow	1848-1851
Levi Hubbell	1848-1853
Edward V. Whiton	1848-1859
Charles H. Larrabee	1848-1853
Mortimer M. Jackson	1848-1853
Wiram Knowlton	1850-1853
Timothy O. Howe	1851-1853
Samuel Crawford	1853-1855
Abram D. Smith	1853-1859
Orsamus Cole	1855-1892
Luther S. Dixon	1859-1874
Byron Paine	1859-1864; 1867-1871
Jason Downer	1864-1867
William P. Lyon	1871-1894
Edward G. Ryan	1874-1880
David Taylor	1878-1891
Harlow S. Orton	1878-1895
John B. Cassoday	1880-1907
John B. Winslow	1891-1920
Silas U. Pinney	1892-1898
Alfred W. Newman	1894-1898
Roujet D. Marshall	1895-1918
Charles V. Bardeen	1898-1903
Joshua E. Dodge	1898-1910
Robert G. Siebecker	1903-1922
James C. Kerwin	1905-1921
William H. Timlin	1907-1916
Robert M. Bashford	1908
John Barnes	1908-1916
Aad J. Vinje	1910-1929
Marvin B. Rosenberry	1916-1950
Franz C. Eschweiler	1916-1929
Walter C. Owen	1918-1934
Burr W. Jones	1920-1926
Christian Doerfler	1921-1929
Charles H. Crownhart	1922-1930
E. Ray Stevens	1926-1930
Chester A. Fowler	1929-1948
Oscar M. Fritz	1929-1954
Edward T. Fairchild	1930-1957
John D. Wickhem	1930-1949
George B. Nelson	1930-1942
Theodore G. Lewis	1934
Joseph Martin	1934-1946
Elmer E. Barlow	1942-1948
James Ward Rector	1946-1947
Henry P. Hughes	1948-1951
John E. Martin	1948-1962
Grover L. Broadfoot	1948-1962
Timothy Brown	1949-1964
Edward J. Gehl	1950-1956
George R. Currie	1951-1968
Roland J. Steinle	1954-1958
Emmert L. Wingert	1956-1959
E. Harold Hallows	1958-1974
William H. Dieterich	1959-1964
Horace W. Wilkie	1962-1976
Bruce F. Beilfuss	1964-1983
Leo B. Hanley	1966-1978
Connor T. Hansen	1967-1980
Robert W. Hansen	1968-1978
Thomas E. Fairchild	1957-1966
Myron Gordon	1962-1967
Nathan S. Heffernan	1964-1995
Roland B. Day	1974-1996
William G. Callow	1977-1992
John Coffey	1978-1981
Shirley Abrahamson	1979-2015
Louis J. Ceci	1982-1993
Donald W. Steinmetz	1980-2000
William A. Bablitch	1983-2003
Jon Wilcox	1992-2007
Janine P. Geske	1993-1998
N. Patrick Crooks	1996-2015
David T. Prosser	1998-2016
Diane S. Sykes	1999-2004
Patience Roggensack	2003-2023
Louis Butler	2004-2008
Michael Gableman	2008-2018

Notable firsts

• Lavinia Goodell was a Janesville attorney and the first woman to apply for admission to the bar of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (at that time, practice before the state’s high court required admission to a separate bar). In the first case in 1875, her application was denied; in the second, following a legislative act that prohibited denial of bar admissions based on gender, she was admitted in 1879.^[56]

• Shirley Abrahamson was the first woman to serve on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and, subsequently, the first female chief justice.

Courts in Wisconsin

See also: Courts in Wisconsin

In Wisconsin, there are two federal district courts, a state supreme court, a state court of appeals, and trial courts with both general and limited jurisdiction. These courts serve different purposes, which are outlined in the sections below.

Click a link for information about that court type.

• Federal courts
• State supreme court
• State court of appeals
• Trial courts

The image below depicts the flow of cases through Wisconsin's state court system. Cases typically originate in the trial courts and can be appealed to courts higher up in the system.

Party control of Wisconsin state government

A state government trifecta is a term that describes single-party government, when one political party holds the governor's office and has majorities in both chambers of the legislature in a state government. A state supreme court plays a role in the checks and balances system of a state government.

Wisconsin has a divided government where neither party holds a trifecta. The Democratic Party controls the office of governor, while the Republican Party controls both chambers of the state legislature.

Noteworthy events

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley announces retirement (April 2024)

On April 11, 2024, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley announced she would not seek a fourth 10-year term in 2025. At the time of her announcement, Bradley said, “I know I can do the job and do it well. I know I can win re-election, should I run. But, it's just time to pass the torch, bringing fresh perspectives to the court.”^[57] Bradley last ran for re-election in 2015, defeating Jame Daley 58.1% to 41.9%.

The Washington Post's Patrick Marley wrote that the retirement "sets the stage for an intense race for control of the court two years after candidates, political parties and interest groups spent more than $50 million in the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history."^[58]

While Wisconsin Supreme Court elections are officially nonpartisan, justices and candidates are considered to be liberal or conservative. The court’s 15-year conservative majority tightened in three elections preceding Bradley's announcement. The 2019 election resulted in conservatives gaining a 5-2 majority, and the 2020 election resulted in a 4-3 conservative majority. In the 2023 election, Janet Claire Protasiewicz defeated Daniel Kelly 55.4% to 44.4%, resulting in liberals gaining a 4-3 majority on the court.

Bradley is part of the court’s liberal majority, and her retirement creates an opportunity in the 2025 election for conservatives to regain a 4-3 majority or for liberals to hold their majority. Conservatives will defend seats in 2026 and 2027, meaning if they do not win a majority in 2025, the next opportunity they have to do so would be the 2028 election.

See also

Wisconsin	Judicial Selection	More Courts
Courts in Wisconsin Wisconsin Court of Appeals Wisconsin Supreme Court	Elections: 2025 • 2024 • 2023 • 2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017 Gubernatorial appointments Judicial selection in Wisconsin	Federal courts State courts Local courts

External links

• Wisconsin Court System, "Supreme Court"
• Wisconsin Court System, "Supreme court opinions: Oral arguments"

Footnotes

v • e Wisconsin Supreme Court Judicial selection in Wisconsin • 2025 elections • Courts in Wisconsin
Current judges	Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, Brian Hagedorn, Jill Karofsky, Janet Claire Protasiewicz, Annette Ziegler
Former judges	Shirley Abrahamson, Bruce F. Beilfuss, Louis Butler, John B. Cassoday, Orsamus Cole, N. Patrick Crooks, Charles H. Crownhart, George R. Currie, Luther S. Dixon, Edward T. Fairchild, Oscar M. Fritz, Michael Gableman, E. Harold Hallows, Daniel Kelly, William P. Lyon, John E. Martin, Harlow S. Orton, David T. Prosser, Patience Drake Roggensack, Marvin B. Rosenberry, Edward G. Ryan, Aad J. Vinje, Edward V. Whiton, Horace W. Wilkie, John B. Winslow