news

Supreme Court Wisconsin

Published: 2025-04-02 02:05:27 5 min read

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, once a relatively obscure judicial body, has become a battleground for ideological and political warfare.

With a history of contentious rulings on voting rights, redistricting, and labor laws, the court’s 4-3 liberal majority secured after the pivotal 2023 election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz has intensified scrutiny over its role in shaping state policy.

Yet, beneath the surface of partisan clashes lie deeper complexities: allegations of judicial bias, dark money influence, and questions about the court’s legitimacy.

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court is embroiled in a crisis of credibility, where partisan polarization, external financial pressures, and ethical ambiguities threaten its ability to function as an impartial arbiter of justice.

Unlike federal judges, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court justices are elected in officially nonpartisan races that have become de facto political campaigns.

The 2023 election, the most expensive judicial race in U.

S.

history, saw over spent, much of it from out-of-state interests (Brennan Center for Justice, 2023).

Justice Protasiewicz’s victory flipped the court’s ideological balance, but her campaign’s explicit criticism of GOP-drawn legislative maps raised ethical concerns.

Conservatives argue such statements prejudge cases, violating judicial impartiality (Federalist Society, 2023).

Meanwhile, liberal advocates counter that transparency about values is necessary in an era where gerrymandering has distorted democracy.

Legal scholar Robert Yablon (UW-Madison) notes, “When the legislature refuses to act fairly, the courts become the only check but that politicizes them further.

” A 2019 investigation by the revealed that funneled through opaque networks.

In 2022, Justice Rebecca Bradley faced criticism after reports showed her campaign benefited from ads funded by a conservative group linked to the Koch network.

Such spending blurs ethical lines, eroding public trust.

A 2023 study by the American Constitution Society found that a perception bolstered by the court’s history of split decisions along ideological lines.

For example, in (2022), conservatives upheld restrictive voter ID laws, while dissenters accused the majority of “legislating from the bench.

” The court’s lack of enforceable ethics rules exacerbates distrust.

In 2021, Justice Brian Hagedorn faced backlash for refusing to recuse himself from cases involving a law firm that donated to his campaign.

Unlike the U.

S.

Supreme Court, Wisconsin has no binding code of conduct for recusals, leaving discretion to individual justices.

Critics, including retired Justice Janine Geske, argue this system is untenable: “When litigants can’t trust that their judge is neutral, the entire judiciary suffers.

Wisconsin State Supreme Court Courtroom Editorial Stock Photo - Image

” Reform proposals such as adopting the American Bar Association’s recusal standards have stalled due to partisan gridlock.

Wisconsin’s struggles mirror broader crises in state judiciaries.

As noted in 2023, “State supreme courts are the new front lines of democracy battles.

” With cases on abortion, election rules, and environmental regulations increasingly landing in state courts, the integrity of these institutions is paramount.

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court stands at a crossroads.

Its decisions will shape not only state policy but also the national debate over judicial legitimacy.

Without reforms such as campaign finance limits, enforceable ethics rules, and nonpartisan appointment systems the court risks becoming merely another political weapon.

As legal scholar Heather Gerken (Yale) warns, “When courts lose the public’s faith, democracy itself is in peril.

” The question remains: Can Wisconsin’s justices rise above factionalism, or will the gavel remain fractured? - Brennan Center for Justice.

(2023).

- American Constitution Society.

(2023).

- Wisconsin Watch.

(2019).

- Yablon, R.

(2023).

UW-Madison Press.