The Wisconsin Supreme Court appears to have concluded its 2023-24 regular term. The court typically finishes an annual term by releasing a series of decisions in June and July. According to one Wisconsin historian, the court issued the fewest decisions during this one-year term since at least 1900.
Undoubtedly the most high-profile decision issued by the court this term was its ruling late last year in Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, in which the court held that that the state legislative maps adopted by the same court in April 2022 were unconstitutional. That decision led to the passage of new state legislative maps, drafted by Gov. Tony Evers (D), that are in place for this year’s election.
Recently, the court issued several notable rulings in politically contentious cases. These decisions will have implications for this year’s election, the 2025-26 legislative session, the 2025-27 state budget process, and beyond. Read more about each case in the following articles:
- Sojenhomer LLC v. Village of Egg Harbor (Eminent Domain)
- Evers v. Marklein (Separation of Powers)
- Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes)
Moreover, Wisconsinites should expect the state supreme court to remain in the news into 2025. Earlier this year, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley announced she will not seek a fourth term on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, a reversal after telling reporters last spring that she planned to seek reelection in the 2025 spring election. Walsh Bradley is a judicial liberal and the court’s longest-serving active member, having been on the bench since 1995.
The 2025 campaign for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court promises to be highly competitive and very expensive. Judicial liberals currently enjoy a 4-3 majority on the court due to the election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz last year in a race that broke national campaign spending records. After 2025, conservatives will not have the opportunity to recapture a majority until 2028 or later. The terms of conservative Justices Rebecca Bradley and Annette Ziegler will be up in 2026 and 2027, respectively.
On the liberal/progressive side, Dane County Judge Susan Crawford has announced her candidacy for Walsh Bradley’s seat and quickly received the endorsement of all four current liberal justices. Before becoming a judge, Crawford served as chief legal counsel to former Gov. Jim Doyle (D) and represented progressive causes as an attorney in private practice. She began her career as a prosecuting attorney for the state. Appellate Judges Chris Taylor and Pedro Colón both publicly considered entering the race as judicia liberals but ultimately decided against doing so.
On the conservative side, Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel entered the race well before Walsh Bradley’s retirement announcement, launching his candidacy last November and getting an early jump on fundraising. Schimel is a former Republican attorney general who was appointed to the bench by former Gov. Scott Walker (R) at the end of Walker’s last term. Appellate Judge Maria Lazar is reportedly still considering running as a conservative and has not yet stated otherwise to the media.
Several other notable cases are currently before or could eventually reach the Wisconsin Supreme Court:
Abortion
The court is currently awaiting being briefed and hearing oral arguments in two cases concerning the interpretation and constitutionality of various state laws related to abortion, Kaul v. Urmanski (2023AP2362) and Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin vs. Urmanski (2024AP330-OA). Joel Urmanski is the district attorney of Sheboygan County who has gone to court to defend state laws restricting abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision.
Act 10
Recently, a Dane County judge struck down part of 2011 Act 10 in a lawsuit filed by several public employee unions (2023CV003152). Act 10 was the signature legislation of former Gov. Walker; it reformed how the state administers public employee benefits, in part by limiting the collective bargaining rights of most public employees.
The ruling found that the manner in which the act distinguished between general and public safety employees violated Equal Protection and therefore certain sections of the act are unconstitutional. It is not yet clear how broad or limited the effects of this decision will be, and it may eventually be appealed to the state supreme court.
Partial Veto (Appropriation Trailer Bill)
A case (2024CV1127) is currently pending in Dane County regarding the partial veto of 2023 Act 100 issued by Gov. Evers. Legislative Republicans are seeking a declaratory judgement that Gov. Evers’ partial veto was illegal, arguing both that the bill was not an appropriation bill (therefore, not subject to a partial veto) and even if it was, the changes made by the governor exceeded his authority by transforming the nature of the bill.
The Department of Public Instruction (DPI), a defendant in the lawsuit, filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the legislature is improperly withholding already-appropriated funds that are meant to be spent under a program created by Act 100. DPI’s counterclaim may be bolstered by the supreme court’s recent decision in Evers v. Marklein, and it seems all but certain that this case will eventually reach the state’s highest court.
Whether budget-related “trailer bills” like Act 100 are in fact appropriations bills subject to the governor’s partial veto has major implications for policymaking in Wisconsin, particularly the biennial state budget process.
Partial Veto (Increased Funding Duration)
In LeMieux v. Evers (2024AP729-OA), the court has agreed to hear an original action regarding Gov. Evers’ use of the partial veto power to extend the duration of a funding increase in the state budget. In this case, Gov. Evers used his partial veto authority to strike digits to create a new year, creating a longer duration for annual increases to the per pupil revenue limit for school districts.