Wisconsin Supreme Court
|Wisconsin Supreme Court|
Seal of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
|Country||Wisconsin , United States|
|Location||Wisconsin State Capitol, Madison, Wisconsin|
|Authorized by||Wisconsin Constitution|
|Decisions are appealed to||Supreme Court of the United States|
|Website||Wisconsin Court System|
|Since||April 29, 2015|
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is the highest appellate court in Wisconsin. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over original actions, appeals from lower courts, and regulation or administration of the practice of law in Wisconsin.
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.
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 issues like the death penalty. 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 referendum on April 7, 2015, the chief justice of the court will be 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. Previous to the change, the justice with the longest continuous service on the court served as the chief justice. Opponents of the referendum called it an attempt to remove longtime Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, a member of the court's liberal minority, while supporters called it an effort to promote democracy on the court.
|Name||First elected||Term expires||Age|
|Patience D. Roggensack||2003||July 31, 2023||77|
|Shirley Abrahamson||1976, Appointed by Gov. Lucey||July 31, 2019||83|
|Ann Walsh Bradley||1995||July 31, 2025||67|
|Annette Ziegler||2007||July 31, 2027||53|
|Michael Gableman||2008||July 31, 2018||51|
|Rebecca Bradley||2015, Appointed by Gov. Walker||July 31, 2026||46|
|Daniel Kelly||2016, Appointed by Gov. Walker||July 31, 2020||53|
Note: Chief Justice denoted in bold
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. Wisconsin had adopted a limit of $1,000 for campaign contributions to judges, but it was unclear when mandatory recusal was required. 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. 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."
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. Bradley later accused Prosser of putting her in a chokehold. Prosser denied the allegations and asked for "a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it". The incident was investigated by the Dane County Sheriff's Office. Witnesses to the incident disagreed about what had happened and neither Prosser nor Bradley was charged by a special prosecutor. 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.
Role in state politics
In 2017, attorney and jurist Tim Burns cited the Supreme Court's record of controversies in announcing his bid to challenge Justice Michael Gableman. Burns cited the decline in public confidence in the court as a motivating factor behind his candidacy; he also acknowledged perceptions that the court has fallen under the control of conservative special interest money.
- See Wis. Const. Art. VII § 4 cl. 3, available at http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/unannotated_wisconst.pdf.
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009).
- wisciviljusticecouncil.org; accessed January 28, 2014.
- Crocker Stevenson, Cary Spivak, and Patrick Marley (June 25, 2011). "Justices’ feud gets physical". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved November 19, 2016.
- Neither Prosser nor Bradley charged, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Accessed January 28, 2014.
- Bruce Vielmetti (10 August 2012). "Gableman joins recusals in Prosser discipline case; court now short of quorum". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 19 November 2016.
- Marley, Patrick (1 May 2017). "Madison lawyer Tim Burns announces Wisconsin Supreme Court run for Michael Gableman's seat". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 2 May 2017.