Attorneys from liberal firms are urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court to quickly appoint a three-judge panel to hear lawsuits claiming the state's congressional districts are gerrymandered and should be redrawn before the 2026 election.
The post Liberal firms urge Wisconsin Supreme Court to move forward with House map lawsuits appeared first on WPR.
Rallygoers hold a sign that reads “Free Kilmar” during a rally Friday, Oct. 10, 2025, outside the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)
GREENBELT, Md. — A federal judge in Maryland seemed inclined to order the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from immigration detention after oral arguments in court Friday, a potentially major development in the high-profile case.
After a more than six-hour hearing, District Judge Paula Xinis said a witness provided by the Justice Department showed little evidence that the Trump administration made an effort to remove Abrego Garcia to the southern African nation of Eswatini, and knew nothing about Abrego Garcia agreeing to be removed to Costa Rica.
The witness tapped by the Department of Justice was John Schultz, a deputy assistant director who oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement removal operations.
After hearing from him, Xinis said keeping Abrego Garcia detained indefinitely would likely be unconstitutional. She said she would issue an order soon.
Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran immigrant whose wrongful deportation from Maryland put a spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown, is currently detained in Pennsylvania.
His attorneys have argued the Trump administration is using detention to punish Abrego Garcia because officials are not trying to remove him, even after Abrego Garcia agreed to be deported to Costa Rica.
Xinis expressed her frustration with Department of Justice attorneys for not providing a witness who would give clear answers on how immigration officials were handling the removal of Abrego Garcia.
“We’re getting to the three strikes, you’re out,” Xinis said.
Andrew J. Rossman, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, argued that if Immigration and Customs Enforcement is making no plans to immediately remove him, he should be released from detention.
He also argued that since March, when the Trump administration erroneously deported Abrego Garcia to a mega-prison in El Salvador, to the present, Abrego Garcia has been “in continuous containment” way past the six-month limit set by the Supreme Court regarding the detention of immigrants.
“The real aim of the government… is punitive, which is just to keep him incarcerated,” Rossman said. “It’s an overtly political purpose.”
Rossman told Xinis that he has not received an answer from the federal government as to why they will not remove Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica, after he agreed to that proposal in August.
Xinis asked DOJ attorney Drew Ensign why Abrego Garcia hasn’t been removed to Costa Rica.
Ensign said that it was not clear to the government until Friday that Abrego Garcia had agreed to be removed to Costa Rica, because Abrego Garcia had previously expressed fear of being sent there.
Abrego Garcia changed his position after Costa Rica assured him he would be given refugee status.
“That is a new development that I will report back to people,” Ensign said.
A 2001 Supreme Court ruling does not allow for immigrants to be detained longer than six months if the federal government is making no efforts to remove them.
After 90 days without efforts to deport an immigrant, a challenge can be made because detaining that person any longer than a maximum of 180 days, or six months, would likely be unconstitutional, the high court found in Zadvydas v. Davis.
Earlier this week, Xinis seemed likely to order Abrego Garcia’s release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention, where he has remained since late August.
Xinis, who also ordered the Trump administration to return Abrego Garica to the United States after she found his removal to El Salvador unlawful, is overseeing his habeas corpus petition, which challenges his detention.
Ahead of the hearing, dozens of supporters from the immigrant advocacy group CASA gathered in front of the District Court for the District of Maryland, chanting, “Somos todos Kilmar,” or, “We are all Kilmar.”
Rallygoers also chanted “What do we want? Justice!” “When do we want it? Now!”
Some also held signs urging the Trump administration to free Abrego Garcia.
Two Maryland state legislators, Dels. Nicole Williams and Bernice Mireku-North, both Democrats, joined the rally.
Williams sponsored legislation during this year’s General Assembly session to prohibit local police from entering into certain agreements with ICE. On the last day of the legislative session in April, lawmakers passed a watered-down version of a bill that does not include the ban, the biggest loss for Maryland immigration advocates this year.
“We are going to be working on legislation with regards to masking by law enforcement officers,” Williams said. “We need to start treating everyone, I don’t care where you’re from, in a humane and decent way. And that’s what we’re going to be fighting for every single day until Kilmar is free and Kilmar comes home. So stop using Kilmar for your own political gain. Bring Kilmar home.”
Schultz, the DOJ witness, revealed that the White House had direct involvement in picking Uganda as a potential third country of removal for ICE’s deportation of Abrego Garcia.
The move was unusual because the State Department typically coordinates third-country removals for the Department of Homeland Security.
Schultz said the Homeland Security Council, which operates within the White House, notified ICE of Uganda as a third country of removal. The Homeland Security Council works with the National Security Council of the White House.
While Uganda is no longer a third country of removal for Abrego Garcia, ICE is trying to now remove him to Eswatini.
Schultz said Eswatini has not agreed to take Abrego Garcia, but discussions, which he said started on Wednesday, are underway.
“The discussions are continuing,” Schultz said.
Schultz said he is not aware if ICE has not made any efforts to determine if Abrego Garcia would face persecution or be tortured or confined in Eswatini, or be removed a second time to El Salvador.
Eswatini has previously agreed to accept third-country removals from the U.S. and the two countries have a memorandum of understanding, he added.
Schultz said that ICE has also identified the west African country of Ghana as a potential nation for Abrego Garica’s removal. Schultz said once a third country has agreed to accept Abrego Garica, he could be removed by ICE within 72 hours.
However, Ghana’s Foreign Minister, Sam Okudzeto Ablakwa, wrote on social media that the country will not accept Abrego Garcia.
“This has been directly and unambiguously conveyed to US authorities,” he wrote. “In my interactions with US officials, I made clear that our understanding to accept a limited number of non-criminal West Africans, purely on the grounds of African solidarity and humanitarian principles would not be expanded.”
Schultz said that ICE “prematurely” sent a notice of removal to Abrego Garcia with Ghana as the designation.
One of Abrego Garcia’s attorneys, Sascha Rand, grilled Schultz about why DHS would not remove him to Costa Rica, despite Abrego Garcia agreeing to go.
Schultz said he was unaware of the letter from Costa Rica’s government saying it would accept Abrego Garcia.
Another attorney for Abrego Garcia, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said that the Trump administration offered to remove Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica in August if he were to plead guilty to criminal charges in a federal case in Tennessee.
Abrego Garcia’s attorneys in his criminal case in Nashville said in court filings that the Trump administration is trying to get him to plead guilty to human smuggling charges by promising to remove him to Costa Rica if he does so, and threatening to deport him to Uganda if he refuses.
Rand asked Schultz if anyone from DHS was in contact with Costa Rica.
Schultz said he was unaware if there were conversations between the federal government and Costa Rica about removing him there.
Rossman said based on Schultz’s testimony, it was clear the Trump administration was “holding hostage passage to Costa Rica.”
“They aren’t presently intending to remove him,” he said. “They have spun the globe and picked various (African) countries… to fail on purpose.”
William J. Ford of Maryland Matters contributed to this report.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
The voting rights focused firm Law Forward and former Democratic U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold filed an amicus brief Monday in a lawsuit brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee to strike down a law that limits the amount of money political parties can contribute to individual candidates for office.
The lawsuit was initially brought in 2022 by two Republican candidates, including then-Sen. J.D. Vance. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Republican argument and now that decision is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court is expected to hear the case during its 2025-26 term, which began on Monday.
In the amicus brief, Feingold and Law Forward argue that the weakening of campaign finance laws over the past few decades has deeply harmed American democracy — making elected officials more responsive to the needs of their wealthiest donors, in or out of their states and districts, rather than their constituents.
“We don’t have to guess what will happen if additional campaign finance rules are torn up, we’ve already witnessed it in Wisconsin. Striking down these federal limits will remove guardrails that are necessary for a representative democracy to thrive,” Feingold said in a statement. “The erosion of regulations is responsible for an alarming increase in the amount of money flowing through elections, giving wealthy donors an outsized voice in the political process, reducing the public’s faith in their elected representatives, and diminishing voters’ willingness to continue participating in the political process.”
During his 18 years in the Senate, Feingold regularly focused on campaign finance issues, including the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which is commonly known as McCain-Feingold and instituted a number of rules guiding the use of “soft money” by outside groups running ads to influence elections.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010 weakened the law and the brief filed Monday argues the erosion of campaign finance rules has damaged the country’s politics and made its government vulnerable to corruption.
“For a representative democracy to thrive, elected officials must be responsive to their constituents and avoid even the appearance of corruption,” the brief states. “Campaign finance regulation exists to reinforce these guardrails. Yet, for years, opponents of regulation have persistently chiseled away at the limits established to prevent excessive campaign cash from corrupting our elections.”
The brief uses Wisconsin as an example, which since 2015 has not placed a limit on the amount political parties can give to candidates. That change has resulted in wealthy donors from Wisconsin and across the country giving maximum contributions to candidates’ campaigns while giving much larger donations to each candidate’s party — essentially using the party committee as a middleman to funnel millions of dollars into candidate accounts.
“With each election cycle, the total contributions made, especially for statewide candidates, grows at a shocking rate, incentivizing candidates to court the wealthiest donors,” the brief states. “And, as Wisconsin elections have drawn more and more national attention, the pool of prospective donors has expanded to include increasing numbers of millionaires and billionaires residing in other states. Thus, the cycle continues. The flood of money into Wisconsin’s elections has bred accusations of corruption and threatens to drown out — if not completely silence — the voices of average voters.”
The brief argues that the decision by Wisconsin Republicans in 2015 to weaken the state’s campaign finance laws resulted in a downward spiral that opened the floodgates to money pouring into high profile races — most notably campaigns for governor and state Supreme Court.
“Wisconsin’s experience shows exactly what happens when we eliminate these crucial guardrails,” Law Forward attorney Rachel Snyder said. “The wealthiest donors route massive contributions through political parties, effectively buying themselves significant access to and influence with both political parties and elected officials. This isn’t about partisan politics — it’s about preserving a democracy where average citizens’ voices aren’t drowned out by billionaires’ checkbooks.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Judge Lisa Neubauer | judgeneubauer.com
Lisa Neubauer, an appeals court judge and former candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court, announced Monday she plans to retire at the end of her term next year.
Neubauer, 68, has sat on the District II Court of Appeals for 18 years after being appointed to the seat in 2007. Prior to joining the bench, she was a private practice attorney at Milwaukee-based Foley and Lardner.
She ran unsuccessfully for the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2019 and was last elected to a six-year term on the appeals court in 2020, winning 54% of the vote in the 12-county southeastern Wisconsin district that is based in Waukesha County.
She is also the mother of Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine).
As the judicial liberals have slowly gained control of the Supreme Court over the past five years, District II has become the most reliably conservative appellate district. Neubauer is the only liberal on the four judge panel.
“In these trying and divided times, our courts must protect our democracy, our liberty, and our rights, by maintaining judicial independence and upholding the constitution and the rule of law. I have attempted to do that with every single decision,” Neubauer said.
Last week, conservative District II Judge Maria Lazar announced she is running for the Supreme Court in next year’s April election.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case that could impact state laws around the country that ban “conversion therapy,” a controversial counseling practice for LGBTQ+ youth. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case that could reverse or solidify state laws across the country that ban a controversial counseling practice for LGBTQ+ youth.
The case challenges a 2019 Colorado law that bans “conversion therapy” for children and teens. Conversion therapy is a catchall term for efforts to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ+ people. Sometimes called “reparative therapy,” it can range from talk therapy and religious counseling to electrical shocks, pain-inducing aversion therapy and physical isolation. The therapy has been widely discredited by medical groups.
More than half of states — including some led by Republicans — have banned or restricted the practice for children and teens since California became the first to do so in 2012, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a left-leaning nonprofit research organization that tracks LGBTQ+-related laws and policies.
In recent years, however, Republicans in several states have worked to reverse bans, with some success. A poll in June by Data for Progress, a liberal think tank, found that although less than half of Republican voters, 43%, support or strongly support conversion therapy, more than half — 56% — said the Supreme Court ought to allow states to ban it.
A decision in the Colorado case, expected next year, could have far-reaching ramifications for dozens of other states.
“I think we’re all really worried about the implications,” said Cliff Rosky, a professor of law at the University of Utah. Rosky helped draft Utah’s 2023 law prohibiting licensed professionals from practicing conversion therapy on LGBTQ+ youth. That measure unanimously passed the Republican-controlled legislature.
“We certainly hope the court will uphold the right of states to regulate the behavior of therapists that it licenses and protect children from a lethal public health threat,” he told Stateline.
The impact on other states’ laws would depend on the scope of the high court’s ruling. But most of those laws are similar to Colorado’s, Rosky said.
“Certainly, a broad ruling against Colorado’s law would jeopardize the constitutionality of all the other laws.”
In Chiles v. Salazar, a licensed counselor in Colorado Springs, Kaley Chiles, sued state officials in 2022 over a law that bars licensed mental health professionals from conducting conversion therapy on clients under 18. She argues the law violates her First Amendment right to free speech and interferes with her ability to practice counseling in a way that aligns with her religious convictions. Chiles is represented by conservative religious law firm Alliance Defending Freedom.
“The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors,” Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a news release when the group filed its opening brief in June. “Colorado’s law harms these young people by depriving them of caring and compassionate conversations with a counselor who helps them pursue the goals they desire.”
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, said in an August news conference that the law doesn’t prohibit a provider from sharing information or viewpoints with a patient, and that therapists are still allowed to talk with patients about conversion practices offered by religious groups.
But he called conversion therapy a “substandard, discredited practice.” Conversion therapy has been denounced by major medical organizations including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
“This practice has been used in the past to try to force patients to change their sexual orientation or their gender identity,” Weiser said. “The science, however, says that this practice is harmful. It doesn’t work.
“Regardless of how it’s performed, there can be real harms from this practice. And those harms can include depression, self-hatred, loss of faith, even suicide.”
The key question in the case is whether Colorado’s law regulates professional standards of conduct and speech, or whether it attempts to regulate the right to free speech, said Marie-Amélie George, a legal historian who has published extensively on LGBTQ+ rights and is a professor of law at Wake Forest University School of Law.
“What is really interesting about these laws is that most licensed health professionals don’t offer conversion therapy because professional associations across the board have condemned it as extremely harmful,” George told Stateline. After the mainstream mental health community disavowed efforts to change people’s sexual orientation by the late 1980s, conversion therapy “became primarily the province of religious and lay ministers,” she said.
State laws like Colorado’s don’t restrict clergy and lay ministers from engaging in conversion therapy, she said. They address only the small subset of state-licensed mental health professionals who wish to use it.
In August, attorneys general in 20 states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief supporting Colorado’s law. They argue the First Amendment doesn’t shield mental health practices from regulation when the state deems them dangerous or ineffective, and that states have a long and established history of regulating professional standards of care.
The decision in this case will probably affect all of the conversion therapy bans in this country.
– Marie-Amélie George, Wake Forest University School of Law professor
Colorado isn’t the only recent battleground over conversion therapy, as conservative majorities in the courts, state legislatures and at the federal level have opened the door for Republican lawmakers and conservative Christian groups to reinstate the practice.
Earlier this year, Kentucky’s Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill canceling Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s 2024 executive order that banned conversion therapy for minors. Beshear promptly vetoed the bill, but the legislature overrode his veto in March.
In April, a coalition of Republican attorneys general from 11 states, led by Iowa and South Carolina, appealed a January decision by a U.S. district court judge to uphold a 2023 Michigan law that’s similar to Colorado’s. It prohibits mental health professionals from trying to alter a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The case began when Catholic Charities of three Michigan counties filed a lawsuit targeting Michigan’s law in 2024 on behalf of a licensed therapist.
In July, a Virginia court partially struck down the state’s 2020 ban on conversion therapy for minors. Republican lawmakers in Michigan introduced a bill in July to repeal their state’s ban, while Missouri’s Republican attorney general sued to overturn local conversion therapy bans.
From the mid-1990s until the mid-2010s, LGBTQ+ rights advocates won a lot of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, said George, the Wake Forest professor.
“But in the years since, the Supreme Court has been more hostile to LGBTQ+ rights claims,” she said. “I think, with the political environment of the court, it will be interesting to see what they do given how they have treated other LGBTQ+ rights cases in recent years.
“States are extremely similar in the laws they have enacted, so the decision in this case will probably affect all of the conversion therapy bans in this country.”
Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a Nashville press conference on July 18, 2025, to discuss arrests of immigrants during recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement sweeps. (Photo by John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Friday again allowed the Trump administration to strip temporary protections for more than 300,000 Venezuelans, opening them up for quick deportations as the president continues with his plans for mass deportations.
The conservative justices granted, 6-3, President Donald Trump’s request from last month to pause a federal judge’s ruling that found Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem lacked the authority to revoke Temporary Protected Status granted to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants under the Biden administration.
All three liberal justices sided with the lower court, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing a dissent with the conservative Supreme Court majority. She criticized the high court’s use of the emergency docket, also known as the shadow docket, which can allow the justices to avoid explaining their reasoning for decisions brought on an emergency basis.
“We once again use our equitable power (but not our opinion-writing capacity) to allow this Administration to disrupt as many lives as possible, as quickly as possible,” Jackson wrote.
The conservative justices did not explain their reasoning but said the harms faced by the Trump administration remained the same as when the case was first brought to the high court in May.
Jackson said that not only were the lower courts correct in their orders to block the removal of TPS protections to limit harm, but that the Supreme Court should have denied the emergency request from the Trump administration.
“Having opted instead to join the fray, the Court plainly misjudges the irreparable harm and balance-of-the-equities factors by privileging the bald assertion of unconstrained executive power over countless families’ pleas for the stability our Government has promised them,” Jackson wrote.
“Because, respectfully, I cannot abide our repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference with cases pending in the lower courts while lives hang in the balance, I dissent,” she continued.
The suit in the Northern District of California will continue despite Friday’s emergency ruling from the high court.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Noem had the authority to revoke extended protections initially granted to Venezuelans under the Biden administration.
Former President Joe Biden granted TPS for Venezuelans who came to the U.S. in 2021 and 2023. Those TPS protections were set to last until October 2026.
TPS is granted when a national’s home country is deemed too dangerous to return to due to violence, political instability or extreme natural disasters. It’s renewed every 18 months and protects immigrants from deportation and allows them access to work permits.
This is the second time the Trump administration has appealed to the high court to allow it to end TPS protections for Venezuelans. In late May, the Supreme Court paved the way for the Trump administration to temporarily terminate TPS for more than 300,000 Venezuelans while the case continued in lower courts.
A conservative Wisconsin appeals court judge announced Wednesday that she is running for an open seat on the battleground state’s Supreme Court, promising to stop the politicization of the courts after record-high spending in the last race, fueled by billionaires Elon Musk and George Soros.
Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar, formerly a prosecutor for the Wisconsin Department of Justice, is the first conservative to enter the race, which will be decided in April. Liberal Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor, a former Democratic state lawmaker, also is running.
Conservative candidates for the high court have lost each of the past two elections by double-digit margins. Both of those races broke national spending records, and a liberal won in April despite spending by Musk, who campaigned for the conservative and handed out $1 million checks to three supporters.
Lazar, 61, said she was disturbed by the massive spending and partisan politics of those races. Both the Republican and Democratic parties were heavily involved in the last campaign.
“We must stop the politicization of our courts,” Lazar said in a campaign launch video.
Lazar pitched herself as an “independent, impartial judge” who will “stop the destruction of our courts.” She also promised “never to be swayed by political decisions” when ruling.
Taylor’s campaign manager, Ashley Franz, said Lazar would be “the most extreme member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court,” if elected.
In her run for the appeals court, Lazar was endorsed by several Republicans who sought to overturn President Donald Trump’s 2020 defeat in Wisconsin.
That includes former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, who has agreed to have his law license suspended over wrongdoing related to his discredited investigation into the 2020 presidential election.
Lazar was also endorsed by former Trump attorney Jim Troupis, who faces felony charges for his role advising Republican electors who tried to cast Wisconsin’s ballots for Trump after he lost. One of those electors, Wisconsin Elections Commission member Bob Spindell, previously backed Lazar.
Pro-Life Wisconsin also endorsed Lazar, calling her “the only choice for pro-life voters.” Taylor formerly worked for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and, as a lawmaker, was one of the Legislature’s most vocal supporters of abortion rights.
Liberal candidates have won four of the past five Supreme Court races, resulting in a 4-3 majority in 2023, ending a 15-year run of conservative control. If liberals lose the April election, they would still maintain their majority until at least 2028. If they win in April, it would increase to 5-2.
Several high-profile issues could make their way to the court in the coming months, including cases involving abortion, collective bargaining rights, congressional redistricting and election rules.
The race is open after incumbent conservative Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley announced in August that she would not seek another 10-year term.
Lazar, in her launch video, contrasted herself with Taylor by saying she “has always been a politician first.”
She noted that she was appointed as a Dane County circuit judge by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers in 2020, without any prior experience on the bench. Taylor won election to the circuit court in 2021 and to the appeals court in 2023.
Lazar will start at a financial disadvantage. Taylor’s campaign said in August that she had already raised more than $1 million.
Lazar, who has been on the state court of appeals since 2022, worked in private practice for 20 years before joining the state Department of Justice as an assistant attorney general in 2011.
During her four years there, she was involved in several high-profile cases, including defending a law under then-Gov. Scott Walker that effectively ended collective bargaining for most public workers. Known as Act 10, the statute was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2011 at a time when conservative justices controlled it.
A circuit court judge ruled in December that the law is unconstitutional but put that decision on hold pending appeal. It could end up before the state’s high court, raising questions about whether Lazar could hear it, given her previous involvement.
Lazar also defended laws passed by Republicans and signed by Walker implementing a voter ID requirement and restricting abortion access.
Lazar left the Justice Department after being elected circuit court judge in Waukesha in 2015. She held that post until being elected to the state appeals court.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.
Conservative Wisconsin appeals court judge Maria Lazar is running for state Supreme Court is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
Chair of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell, left, administers the oath of office to Lisa Cook, right, to serve as a member of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve System during a ceremony at the William McChesney Martin Jr. Building of the Federal Reserve May 23, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will take up in January the question of President Donald Trump’s firing of Federal Reserve Board governor Lisa Cook, according to an order filed by the court Wednesday.
The unsigned order states Trump’s application to stay a lower court’s decision to keep Cook on board while the case plays out will be deferred until oral arguments on an unspecified date in January.
Trump tried to remove Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in late August, alleging she lied on a mortgage application. A federal district judge sided with Cook in early September after she challenged the president in court.
A three-judge panel then split 2-1 in rejecting Trump’s appeal to overturn the lower court decision and affirmed on Sept. 16 that Cook could keep her position as the case plays out.
Trump asked the Supreme Court to intervene, adding to his series of petitions to the justices since his second term began. The decision could have major bearing on Trump’s powers as the chief executive.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters during Wednesday’s briefing that the administration remains confident about the legality of Cook’s firing.
“Look, we have respect for the Supreme Court but they’re going to hear the actual case and make a determination on the legal argument in January. And we look forward to that because we maintain that she was fired well within the president’s legal authority to do so. She was removed from the board. And we look forward to that case being fully played out at the Supreme Court,” Leavitt said.
The legal battle is occurring against a backdrop of Trump’s ongoing pressure to insert himself in the decisions of the independent central bank.
For months Trump and his allies have attacked Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell with antagonizing social media posts amid Trump’s continued campaign for lower interest rates.
The president and Senate Republicans recently installed White House economist Stephen Miran on the board. Miran is taking a leave of absence as chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers while he serves in the role.
The Fed lowered interest rates for the first time in 2025 by a quarter percentage point on Sept. 17. Miran was the only board governor to vote against the change after lobbying for a half-point cut.
Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Fed board, was appointed by former President Joe Biden in 2023 and confirmed by the Senate in a 51-47 vote.
The Federal Reserve’s dual mandate is to maximize the nation’s employment while also stabilizing prices by keeping inflation low and steady over a long period of time. Among the tools the central bank uses to accomplish the two missions is regulating interest rates to cool inflation or stimulate the economy.
In a video posted to X, Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar announced she's running for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. (headshot courtesy of Wisconsin Court System)
Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar announced she’s running for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court Wednesday morning.
Since her election to the District II Court of Appeals in 2022, Lazar has been a reliable vote for right-wing causes on the panel — which is controlled by a 3-1 conservative majority.
Lazar joins fellow appellate Judge Chris Taylor in the race for an open seat on the Court, which is being vacated by Justice Rebecca Bradley. Bradley has been one of the Court’s most right-wing members and announced earlier this year she would not run for re-election.
In a video posted to X, Lazar said she was running for the seat to reduce the “politicization” of the Court.
“We need to draw a line in the sand and stop the destruction of our courts, especially our state Supreme Court,” Lazar said. “I am an independent, impartial judge who strives to follow the law and Constitution in every decision I make from the bench. It is time to restore that level of judicial dedication to the Court.”
Lazar, a former Waukesha County judge and assistant district attorney, also noted that she’s been elected to her seats on the circuit and appeals courts while Taylor, a former Democratic state lawmaker, was first appointed to a seat on the Dane County Circuit Court by Gov. Tony Evers.
While her campaign announcement sought to establish her nonpartisan bonafides, Lazar has a history of fighting for Republican causes. In her last campaign for her seat on the court of appeals, Lazar touted endorsements from prominent election deniers.
Those endorsements included former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, who recently agreed to have his law license suspended for three years over his widely derided review of the 2020 presidential election, Jim Troupis, who is facing criminal charges for his role in the plot to cast false Electoral College votes on behalf of President Donald Trump, and Bob Spindell, a Republican member of the Wisconsin Elections Commission who cast one of those fraudulent ballots and has regularly used his position to spread conspiracy theories about election administration.
Lazar was also endorsed in that race by Pro-Life Wisconsin, an organization dedicated to banning all abortions in the state. That endorsement is a stark contrast with Taylor, who previously worked as policy director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.
“Just like Rebecca Bradley, Maria Lazar has spent her career rolling back people’s rights, attacking reproductive health care and voting rights, and doing the bidding of powerful special interests and her billionaire friends,” Ashley Franz, Taylor’s campaign manager, said in a statement. “If elected, Maria Lazar would be the most extreme member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. It’s no surprise that she’s backed by the same right-wing billionaires who tried unsuccessfully to buy a seat on our supreme court this last April, which Wisconsinites overwhelmingly rejected.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman in a 2021 video promoting the partisan review of the 2020 election. (Screenshot/Office of the Special Counsel YouTube channel)
Former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman’s license to practice law in Wisconsin should be suspended for three years, a third-party referee wrote, agreeing with the state Office of Lawyer Regulation’s allegations that he violated standards for professional conduct during his much-maligned review of the 2020 presidential election.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court will have the final say in the matter, a Court spokesperson said Friday.
The suspension recommendation marks the conclusion of Gableman’s effort to fight attempts to hold him accountable for his conduct during the election investigation. The OLR found that while working on behalf of Assembly Speaker Robin Vos to look into alleged wrongdoing during the election, Gableman lied to a Waukesha County judge about conversations he had with other attorneys, lied to an Assembly committee, deliberately violated state open records laws, used his agreement with Vos to pursue his own political interests, violated his duty of confidentiality to his client and lied in an affidavit to the OLR as it was investigating him.
Gableman’s investigation ultimately cost the state more than $2.3 million without finding any evidence to confirm President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of fraud during the 2020 election.
The review also helped further fan the flames of election conspiracy theories in the state. Those beliefs have remained prominent among segments of the state Republican Party’s base nearly five years after the election.
After fighting the allegations against him, Gableman ultimately reached an agreement with the OLR and stipulated that the allegations in the complaint against him were true.
In his report the referee, James Winiarski, wrote that the consequences for Gableman’s actions must be severe.
“A high level of discipline is needed to protect the public, the courts and the legal system from repetition of Attorney Gableman’s misconduct by Attorney Gableman or any other attorneys,” Winiarski wrote. “His misconduct was very public in nature and involved many members of the public and employees of several municipalities.”
This report has been updated to clarify that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will make the final decision on the referee’s recommendation.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
A formal recommendation of punishment for Michael Gableman, whose career rise and fall set him apart in Wisconsin legal and political history, signals the end of a case that has been humiliating for the former state Supreme Court justice and the court itself.
In a report issued Friday, a referee in a state Office of Lawyer Regulation case found that Gableman committed 10 lawyer misconduct violations in his probe of the 2020 presidential election in Wisconsin.
The partisan probe was authorized at the behest of then-citizen Donald Trump, who lost that election to Joe Biden.
The referee, Milwaukee attorney James Winiarski, recommended that the state Supreme Court suspend Gableman’s law license for three years.
Gableman and the Office of Lawyer Regulation, seeking to settle the case, had stipulated to the three-year suspension.
“A high level of discipline is needed to protect the public, the courts and the legal system from repetition” of Gableman’s conduct, by him or other attorneys, the referee wrote.
Former state Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske, who was appointed to the court by Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson, said before the report was issued that Gableman’s behavior in the investigation “was so outrageous and damaging to the image of the Supreme Court.
“But he has been on the outskirts or around ethical violations his whole Supreme Court career.”
Gableman, 58, a Waukesha County resident who has largely receded from public view, did not reply to requests for comment.
The conservative Gableman, a former small-county judge with close ties to the Republican Party, made history by defeating an incumbent justice in the 2008 election. He served one 10-year term before his career began to unravel.
As Wisconsin Watch detailed in April, Gableman attended the 2016 Republican National Convention, in possible violation of the state judicial code, and had to be escorted out of two gatherings there after causing disturbances. After deciding not to seek re-election in 2018, he worked for the first Trump administration before leading the election investigation, a probe that found no fraud but cost taxpayers $2.8 million — four times the budgeted amount.
Gableman now finds himself facing punishment from the very court he served on.
Winiarski has practiced law for more than 40 years and has previously served as referee in lawyer discipline cases. He invoiced the Supreme Court $8,208 for nearly 109 hours on the case at $75.51 per hour. He recommended Gableman be responsible for all costs associated with the disciplinary matter.
The suspension recommendation essentially codifies a stipulation Gableman made in April with the Office of Lawyer Regulation in which he stated he could not successfully mount a legal defense against the misconduct allegations.
The liberal-majority Supreme Court, which began its current session in September, must still approve the punishment.
Geske, who was a justice from 1993 to 1998, said the suspension would be fair punishment in part because Gableman’s conduct in the investigation, including threatening to jail elected officials, helped solidify the public perception that Wisconsin judges have become partisan actors.
“I think people wonder what’s happening in the court and what’s happening with the individual justices,” she said. “So I think he did great harm to the court in engaging in that behavior.”
The Office of Lawyer Regulation case against Gableman alleged that during the election investigation Gableman violated 10 counts of Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for attorneys. He was accused of making false statements about a judge, an opposing attorney and two mayors; making false statements to the Office of Lawyer Regulation; disobeying a court order; and violating the state open records law and confidentiality rules.
University of Wisconsin-Madison political science professor Howard Schweber, who is affiliated with UW’s law school, said a three-year license suspension verges on lenient because of the seriousness of the misconduct and because Gableman was acting in a public capacity, not as a private attorney.
Wausau attorney Dean Dietrich, a former Wisconsin Bar Association president and expert on lawyers’ professional responsibility, said “it is unfortunate” that a former justice is facing a law license suspension, but that “the actions of one person do not reflect the actions of others.”
Judicial offices in Wisconsin technically are nonpartisan, but state Supreme Court races have drawn heavy participation and money from the Republican and Democratic parties.
Marquette University law professor Chad Oldfather, author of a recent book on the importance of selecting judges with good character, said a three-year suspension would be typical for the type of misconduct alleged against Gableman.
“Ultimately, we want people of the highest character in judicial roles,” Oldfather said. “Somehow we have to find a way to get the legal profession and the broader culture to buy into that as the top priority, which seems like an awfully heavy lift these days.”
There are also calls for tougher action on lawyer misconduct.
Madison lawyer Jeffrey Mandell, head of a law firm that filed a misconduct complaint against Gableman with the Office of Lawyer Regulation, noted that Gableman previously was investigated for ethics violations involving an ad he ran in his Supreme Court campaign and for hearing cases while a justice that involved a law firm that gave him free legal services.
Gableman was not sanctioned in those cases.
Mandell said the state needs to act more quickly and more decisively on lawyer misconduct. He noted Wisconsin lawyers are not subject to permanent disbarment. Those who receive the most severe punishment, a five-year license revocation, can petition after five years to get their license back.
The vast majority of states allow disbarred attorneys to apply for license reinstatement.
“Some conduct is simply beyond the pale, deserving of a permanent ban from the public trust of legal practice,” Mandell said. “It’s past time for Wisconsin to recognize this.”
After the report was issued, Mandell called for the Supreme Court to revoke Gableman’s law license, saying: “Anything less minimizes the gravity of his offensive behavior and lacks deterrent effect. Wisconsin attorneys must understand that engaging in unethical conduct to overturn the will of voters will not be tolerated, regardless of who the actor is.”
Supreme Court should suspend Michael Gableman’s law license for 3 years, referee says is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
A court appointed referee is recommending that former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman lose his law license for three years because of several ethics violations during his failed investigation into the 2020 election.
The post Court-appointed referee recommends Michael Gableman lose law license for 3 years appeared first on WPR.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has asked parties to file briefs on whether two redistricting lawsuits filed in Dane County Circuit Court should be allowed to proceed.
The post Wisconsin Supreme Court orders legal briefs in 2 congressional map challenges appeared first on WPR.
Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos says discussions are underway to allow Wisconsin lawmakers and the state Supreme Court to use tax dollars for security at their homes amid an uptick in political violence.
The post Robin Vos open to letting lawmakers, justices use tax dollars for home security appeared first on WPR.
Chair of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell, left, administers the oath of office to Lisa Cook, right, to serve as a member of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve System during a ceremony at the William McChesney Martin Jr. Building of the Federal Reserve May 23, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling and allow the president to fire Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a 41-page appeal that a district court blocking President Donald Trump’s efforts to remove Cook “involves yet another case of improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority—here, interference with the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause.”
Trump has had an ongoing dispute with the independent Federal Reserve Board for months, repeatedly calling on them to lower interest rates, which they did on Wednesday.
Trump said in late August that he wanted to remove Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve Board, alleging she falsified some information in a mortgage application.
Cook’s attorneys filed a lawsuit in federal court a few days later, arguing that Trump’s attempts were political and violated her due process rights.
U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb granted a preliminary injunction in early September, writing the case marks the first time in the Federal Reserve’s 111-year history that a president has sought to remove one of its members “for cause.”
The Federal Reserve Act doesn’t actually define what “for cause” entails, but Cobb wrote that reasons for firing under the law “are limited to grounds concerning an official’s behavior in office and whether they have been faithfully and effectively executing statutory duties.
“The ‘for cause’ standard thus does not contemplate removing an individual purely for conduct that occurred before they assumed the position.”
The Trump administration appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
A three-judge panel from that court earlier this week rejected the Trump administration’s request to overturn the district court’s preliminary injunction while the case proceeds.
The 2-1 ruling split Judge Gregory G. Katsas, whom Trump nominated during his first term, and Judges J. Michelle Childs and Bradley N. Garcia, both nominated by former President Joe Biden.
Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.
Chair of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell, left, administers the oath of office to Lisa Cook, right, to serve as a member of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve System during a ceremony at the William McChesney Martin Jr. Building of the Federal Reserve May 23, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — An appeals court late Monday rejected the Trump administration’s request to move ahead with firing Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, as the president tries to pressure the independent board to lower interest rates.
The 2-1 decision will allow Cook to partake in Tuesday’s Federal Reserve meeting, where the board will vote on whether to adjust interest rates.
The Trump administration is likely to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
If Trump is successful in removing Cook and is able to nominate a replacement, he could have a majority of Fed members who are aligned with his desire to lower interest rates to boost the economy.
Cook, appointed by former President Joe Biden, is the first Black woman appointed to the Fed, and she has consistently voted against lowering interest rates since joining the board in 2022. Her term ends in 2038.
Late Monday, the U.S. Senate also approved Trump’s nominee for an open spot at the Fed, Stephen Miran, in a 48-47 vote.
While the Fed is an independent agency, Miran will continue to serve as the head of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers.
In a social media post Monday, the president called out Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, and pressed that he “MUST CUT INTEREST RATES, NOW, AND BIGGER THAN HE HAD IN MIND. HOUSING WILL SOAR!!!.”
In the appeals court decision on Cook, D.C. Circuit Judge Gregory G. Katsas, whom Trump appointed in 2017, split with Judges J. Michelle Childs and Bradley N. Garcia, both appointed by Biden.
Last week a federal judge ruled to keep Cook in her position, determining that Trump administration allegations of mortgage fraud lacked evidence and did not meet the threshold for removing Cook under “just cause.”
Katsas agreed with the Trump administration’s argument that the president has the right to remove a Fed member for “just cause.”
“This broad definition ‘give[s] the President more removal authority than other removal provisions’ imposed by Congress or reviewed by the Supreme Court,” Katsas wrote in his dissent.
Childs and Garcia did not address the “just cause” argument but said the lack of due process Cook received in her removal warranted blocking Trump’s attempt to fire her.
“Because Cook’s due process claim is very likely meritorious, there is no need to address the meaning of ‘for cause’ in the Federal Reserve Act in this emergency posture,” the majority wrote in the opinion.
A Trump official referred Cook to the Department of Justice, accusing her of improperly filing paperwork about her residence that allowed her to get a more favorable mortgage rate. Reuters obtained Cook’s paperwork and found no evidence of tax rule violations.
President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during an event announcing broad global tariffs in the Rose Garden of the White House on April 2, 2025. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in early November on whether President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs are legal, according to an order the court released Tuesday.
The one-page unsigned order laid out an expedited timeline, which the administration had requested, for the consolidated legal challenges brought by a handful of business owners and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general.
A U.S. appeals court sided with the businesses and state officials late last month. In its 7-4 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling in May finding Trump’s unprecedented use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to trigger global tariffs violated the Constitution.
The justices’ acceptance of the case is the latest in a string of legal challenges against the administration that have escalated to the high court since Trump took office in January. Recently the Supreme Court has handed the administration wins on immigration enforcement and withholding foreign aid.
Trump began imposing wide-reaching tariffs in February and significantly broadened them in the following months on goods from around the globe after declaring national emergencies — first over illegal fentanyl smuggling, and then declaring trade deficits an emergency. A trade deficit means the U.S. imports more goods from a country than that nation’s businesses purchase from U.S. suppliers.
As of July, the U.S. had collected roughly $122 billion in tariff revenue, according to a monthly tracker produced by the Peterson Institute on International Economics.
Tariffs are taxes that the U.S. government collects from domestic businesses and purchasers when they import foreign goods.
In the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court to fast-track the case, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argued the government would face “catastrophic” economic fallout if it had to repay businesses for the tariffs already collected, particularly if the court waited until next year to take the case.
Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among states that challenged Trump’s emergency tariffs.
The business plaintiffs include V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based company that imports wine and spirits from 16 countries, a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company, and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Trump administration can temporarily hold on to $4 billion in foreign aid funding approved by Congress, overturning a lower court’s order and continuing a struggle over who controls the nation’s purse strings.
The one-page ruling from the emergency docket, signed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., came just one day after the administration appealed the lower court’s ruling.
While the original lawsuit over withheld foreign aid began in February and stemmed from an executive order, the Trump administration sent Congress a rescissions request covering some of the spending in late August.
The proposal is part of the formal process laid out in a 1974 law that allows the president to ask lawmakers to cancel previously approved spending.
Congress typically has 45 days to approve, modify, or disagree with a rescissions request. During that time the president can legally freeze the funding and only has to spend it if lawmakers don’t approve the plan.
This particular rescission request, however, was sent to lawmakers within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year, creating a dispute that complicated the nature of the original lawsuit.
That maneuver, sometimes called a pocket rescission, is considered illegal by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and several members of Congress, though White House budget director Russ Vought believes it’s within the bounds of the law.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the Trump administration’s appeal that the federal district court’s order to spend the funding “requires the Executive Branch to rush to obligate the same $4 billion that the President has just proposed rescinding between now and September 30, and thus puts the Executive Branch at war with itself.”
“Just as the President is pressing for rescission and explaining to Congress that obligating these funds would harm U.S. foreign policy interests, his subordinates are being forced to proceed to identify and even negotiate with potential recipients,” he added.
The Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday doesn’t address whether the justices agree with the administration that it can refuse to spend the billions in foreign aid since it sent the rescissions request close to the end of the fiscal year.
Roberts wrote “that the September 3, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case Nos. 1:25-cv-400 and 1:25-cv-402, is hereby partially stayed for funds that are subject to the President’s August 28, 2025 recission proposal currently pending before Congress pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Friday, September 12th, 2025, by 4 p.m. (EDT).”
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.
A conservative justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court said Friday that she will not seek reelection, creating an open race for a seat on the court that’s controlled 4-3 by liberals.
Justice Rebecca Bradley’s decision not to run for a second full term comes after conservative candidates for the highest court in the battleground state have lost each of the past two elections by double-digit margins. Both of those races broke national spending records and the liberal won in April despite heavy spending by billionaire Elon Musk.
Liberal state Supreme Court candidates have won four of the past five races, resulting in them taking over the majority in 2023, breaking a 15-year run of conservative control. Regardless of who wins the April election, liberals will maintain their 4-3 court majority until at least 2028. If they can win next year, their majority would increase to 5-2.
The open race comes as several high-profile issues could make their way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the coming months, including abortion, collective bargaining rights, congressional redistricting and election rules.
Chris Taylor, a state appeals court judge and former Democratic state lawmaker, is the only announced candidate.
Bradley had said in April that she planned to run again, but ultimately changed her mind.
“I will not seek reelection to the Wisconsin Supreme Court because I believe the best path for me to rebuild the conservative movement and fight for liberty is not as a minority member of the Court,” she said in a statement.
Bradley said her warnings about the court being controlled by “judicial activists” went unheeded “and Wisconsin has seen only the beginning of what is an alarming shift from thoughtful, principled judicial service toward bitter partisanship, personal attacks, and political gamesmanship that have no place in court.”
“The conservative movement needs to take stock of its failures, identify the problem, and fix it,” she said.
Bradley, 54, was appointed to the Supreme Court by then-Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 and won election to a full 10-year term in 2016. Before joining the court, Bradley had served three years as a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge and a year as a state appeals court judge.
Bradley was a reliable conservative voice on the court, dissenting on a July ruling that found an 1849 Wisconsin law did not ban abortions. Another case, brought by Planned Parenthood that seeks to make abortion a constitutional right, has been accepted by the court, but a date for oral arguments has not been set.
When conservatives had the majority, Bradley voted to uphold the Act 10 law that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most state workers. A new challenge to that law is in the state appeals court and could go before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Bradley also voted with conservative justices in a 2020 case brought by President Donald Trump in a failed attempt to overturn his loss in Wisconsin that year. The court ruled 4-3 against Trump.
And she sided with the conservative majority in a ruling banning absentee ballot drop boxes that was later overturned by the liberal-controlled court.
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley won’t run for re-election in 2026 is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
This month, for the first time in 30 years, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is without Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. It is also without one of its most consistent advocates for transparency in government.
Bradley served three 10-year terms on the court, the last of which expired July 31. During this time, she wrote nearly 600 opinions, including quite a few that contained important interpretations of Wisconsin’s open records and meetings laws.
In a 1996 opinion, Bradley rejected the argument that open records and meetings lawsuits had to be preceded by 120 days notice. Bradley, writing for a unanimous court, said the laws require “timely access to the affairs of government.”
In 2007, Bradley’s majority opinion in Buswell v. Tomah Area School District strengthened the public notice requirements of the state’s open meetings law. That case required meeting notices to be more specific about the subject matter of topics to be discussed, to better inform the public.
In another majority opinion in 2008, Bradley provided some clarity as to when “quasi-governmental corporations” are subject to the open meetings law. In that case, the Beaver Dam city economic development office had closed, then was immediately replaced by a private corporation that continued to use city offices and receive tax dollars. Bradley’s opinion concluded that because the corporation still resembled the government in function, purpose and effect, it had to follow the laws.
Not every opinion written by Bradley was for the majority. In 2017, she dissented from a decision to exempt from disclosure unredacted immigration detainer forms sent by the Milwaukee County jail to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Her opinion methodically rejected the county’s arguments in favor of redaction, arguing that “continuous ‘chipping away’ has substantially gutted Wisconsin’s commitment to open government.”
Just one year later, Bradley dissented again, this time from an opinion that denied a public union’s request for certification forms. “The unfounded speculation that the records might be used for improper purposes,” she wrote, “does not outweigh the strong public interest in opening the records to inspection.”
Regardless of whether Bradley wrote a majority, dissenting or concurring opinion, she always emphasized the strong public policy in favor of open government set forth in Wisconsin’s open records and open meetings laws. And she condemned decisions that paid only “lip service” to these principles, calling them “all hat and no cattle.”
Bradley even had occasion to apply open government principles to the Wisconsin Supreme Court itself. In 2012, she opposed its 4-3 decision to close some of the court’s rules and operations conferences to the public. As reported by Wisconsin Watch at the time, Bradley questioned the change, asking, “What is the good public policy reason to exclude the public from this process? I can’t think of any.”
In 2017, Bradley was one of two justices who voted against closing all such conferences. (Fortunately, in 2023, a newly constituted court decided to reopen its conferences, with Bradley in the majority.)
Bradley told Wisconsin Lawyer magazine that she intends to stay engaged with organizations that support law and civics education. Her dedication to open government in these endeavors should serve her well, as it has the citizens of Wisconsin for three decades.
Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Christa Westerberg is the council’s vice president and a partner at the Pines Bach law firm in Madison. Heather Kuebel contributed research to this column.
Your Right to Know: Ann Walsh Bradley and the cause of openness is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
Login