Chief Justice Jill Karofsky, shown here during oral arguments in January, wrote for four justices that laws empowering the Legislature's Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative rules violate the Wisconsin Constitution. (Screenshot/WisEye)

State laws that let a 10-member committee of the Legislature override regulations are unconstitutional, a majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The ruling hands the administration of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers a victory in an ongoing battle with the Legislature’s Republican leaders.

It also affirms that the state Legislature cannot renew its attempt to block regulations against conversion therapy for LGBTQ people, and appears to clear the way for an update of Wisconsin’s building code that was suspended nearly two years ago.

The ruling finds five statutes, granting power to the Legislature’s committee that reviews and periodically suspends administrative rules, violate the Wisconsin Constitution.

Taken together, wrote Chief Justice Jill Karofsky for the four justices making up the Court’s liberal wing, the statutes give the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules the power to effectively change state laws without going through the full legislative process.

“The ability of a ten-person committee to halt or interrupt the passage of a rule, which would ordinarily be required to be presented to the governor as a bill [to block the rule], is simply incompatible with Articles IV and V of the Wisconsin Constitution,” Karofsky wrote.

The Court’s three conservative justices took issue with the majority opinion, asserting that rulemaking itself involves legislative power and that Tuesday’s ruling improperly constrains the Legislature as the elected representatives of the people.

‘Legislative veto’ lawsuit 

The decision is the second to come from a lawsuit Evers filed in the fall of 2023, Evers v. Marklein, accusing the Republican leaders of the Legislature of exercising an unconstitutional “legislative veto” hampering the lawful powers of the executive branch to make administrative rules.

The Evers administration argued that five statutes granting JCRAR the power to review, object to and block rules before or after they are promulgated violate the state Constitution. Those include a law enacted in December 2018, after Evers was elected governor but before he took office, that allows the committee to lodge “indefinite” objections blocking a rule.

The Court majority agreed with the administration’s argument.

The Wisconsin Constitution requires that for a law to be enacted, it must pass both the Assembly and the Senate and then be presented to the governor to be signed or vetoed.

“By permitting JCRAR to exercise discretion over which approved rules may be promulgated and which may not, the statute empowers JCRAR to take action that alters the legal rights and duties of persons outside of the legislative branch” without going through the lawmaking process, Karofsky wrote.

The indefinite objection “prevents the agency from promulgating a rule unless the Legislature passes a bill enacting the rule,” she wrote. “Said another way, legislative inertia after an indefinite objection could permanently stop the promulgation of a rule.”

Evers, lawmakers, advocates praise Court’s ruling on regulations

The law allowing the committee to pause a rule for 30 days before it is promulgated “essentially allows JCRAR to capture control of agency rulemaking authority from the executive branch during the 30-day pause period,” Karofksy wrote.

The pause, which can be extended to 30 days “operates as a ‘pocket veto,’” she wrote. “Even if such an interruption is relatively brief, the constitution does not contemplate temporary violations of its provisions.”

Similarly, after the rule has been promulgated, JCRAR’s power to suspend it multiple times “means that even after promulgation, JCRAR could suspend a rule repeatedly in perpetuity with no other checks in place,” the chief justice wrote.

Clearing way for conversion therapy ban, new building code

In overturning the five statutes, the Court majority also revoked two earlier rulings that had affirmed some of JCRAR’s powers — one from 1992, upholding the committee’s temporary suspension of a rule, and the other from 2020, endorsing the power to suspend a rule multiple times.

Evers’ suit focused on two rules that JCRAR blocked, both produced under the umbrella of the state Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS).

One rule prohibited therapists from using discredited conversion therapy to try to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ people. It was adopted by the Wisconsin Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling, and Social Work Examining Board.

“When the Board created new professional conduct rules banning conversion therapy, it exercised its statutory authority,” Karofksy wrote. “But when JCRAR objected to the rule it effectively blocked the Board’s authority” under Wisconsin law “to govern the professional conduct of its licensees.”

The conversion therapy rule was suspended in January 2023, but reinstated after the Legislature concluded its work for the 2023-24 session.

With “the multiple suspension provision,” however, Karofsky wrote, “JCRAR has the authority to suspend this rule again, in perpetuity.”

Another rule updated the state commercial building code to international standards set in 2021.

“The goal of these chapters is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public,” Karofsky wrote. JCRAR’s indefinite suspension of the code in 2023  “prevented DSPS from completing its statutory rulemaking duties,” she wrote.

Conservative justices object

Justice Brian Hagedorn, one of three members of the Court’s conservative wing, wrote an opinion that concurred with the majority on narrow grounds but dissented on finding the five laws at issue unconstitutional.

The JCRAR indefinite objection to the building code rule is unconstitutional under a 1992 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, Hagedorn wrote.

He argued that the conversion therapy rule is now outside the Court’s purview, however.

“This ethical rule is already in effect; it is no longer suspended,” Hagedorn wrote. “Since a ruling on JCRAR’s actions with respect to this rule would have no legal effect, this claim is moot, and we have nothing further to decide.”

Hagedorn criticized the decision’s far-reaching findings that whole statutes were unconstitutional, however. He said it also failed to grapple with arguments about the constitutional status of regulation by executive branch agencies.

“The effect of the majority’s decision is to greenlight executive alteration of legal rights and duties outside the lawmaking process while prohibiting legislative alteration of legal rights and duties outside the lawmaking process,” Hagedorn wrote.

Former Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Rebecca Bradley published separate sharply worded dissents.

Ziegler wrote that the majority ruling was the outcome of “this court’s misguided quest to restructure and unbalance our state government, culminating in even more power and control being allocated to the executive branch.”

“The legislature has delegated executive branch agencies broad rulemaking authority with the understanding that it will be able to oversee administrative rulemaking through JCRAR,” Ziegler wrote. “The majority now pulls the rug out from under the legislature…”

Bradley, invoking lyrics from Bruce Springsteen’s song “Badlands” in which the singer says “a king ain’t satisfied ‘til he rules everything,” charged that the majority “lets the executive branch exercise lawmaking power unfettered and unchecked.”

Her dissent offered a full-throated attack on the administrative state and executive branch regulatory authority.

“The majority invokes the Wisconsin Constitution to take power from the People’s elected representatives in the legislature and bestow it on the executive branch, empowering unelected bureaucrats to rule over the People,” Bradley wrote.

2025-07-08_SCOWI_Evers v Marklein – JCRAR

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

In a 4-3 decision, Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the state’s 1849 law banning abortion had been “impliedly repealed” by the Legislature when it passed laws over the past half century “regulating in detail the ‘who, what, where, when, and how’” of abortion. 

The Court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Rebecca Dallet and joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz, finds that the Legislature could not have passed laws regulating abortion access if the 1849 statute was believed to remain in effect. 

“This case is about giving effect to 50 years’ worth of laws passed by the Legislature about virtually every aspect of abortion including where, when, and how health-care providers may lawfully perform abortions,” Dallet wrote. “The Legislature, as the peoples’ representatives, remains free to change the laws with respect to abortion in the future. But the only way to give effect to what the Legislature has actually done over the last 50 years is to conclude that it impliedly repealed the 19th century near-total ban on abortion, and that [the statute] therefore does not prohibit abortion in the State of Wisconsin.” 

Dallet wrote that when the Legislature passed laws restricting abortion under narrower circumstances, guiding “where, when and how” health care providers could perform an abortion and outlining how public money could fund abortion providers, it was repealing the 1849 law. 

The ruling comes three years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark Court ruling that found there was a constitutional right to abortion access and marks the conclusion of a legal dispute that helped Protasiewicz win election to the Court in 2023 and Susan Crawford win election this April. 

In response, the Court’s three conservative justices filed dissents, accusing the majority of “propaganda,” “smoke-and-mirrors legalese” and “pure policymaking.” 

“The majority’s smoke-and-mirrors legalese is nothing more than ‘painting a mule to resemble a zebra, and then going zebra hunting. But paint does not change the mule into a zebra,’” Justice Annette Ziegler wrote. “Those in the majority know better, but they do so anyway because they like the result and promised to deliver it.” 

In his dissent, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote that the majority failed to show when the law was presumably repealed by the Legislature, saying that the opinion doesn’t properly address the Legislature’s actions in 2011 and 2015 amending the 1849 law.  

“The majority does not say when over those 40 years the Legislature once and for all repealed [the statute],” he wrote. “Was it when the Legislature passed a postviability ban? A partial-birth abortion ban? A twenty-week ban? A waiting period? A physician licensing requirement? The majority fails to say.”

23AP2362 Mandate

Following the ruling’s release, the state’s Democratic elected officials and abortion access activists celebrated the decision as a “win” for reproductive health care in the state. 

“Thanks to our lawsuit, today’s decision affirms that access to reproductive healthcare will continue to be available, helping ensure Wisconsin women today are not forced to face firsthand what it’s like to live in a state that bans nearly all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest,” Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement. “Today is a win for women and families, a win for healthcare professionals who want to provide medically accurate care to their patients, and a win for basic freedoms in Wisconsin, but our work is not over. I will continue to fight any effort that takes away Wisconsinites’ reproductive freedom or makes reproductive healthcare, whether birth control, abortion, IVF, or fertility treatments, any less accessible in Wisconsin than it is today. That is a promise.”

Attorney General Josh Kaul, who brought the lawsuit against the law, said at a Wednesday morning news conference that the decision was an important step toward ensuring all Wisconsinites have the freedom to access abortion care, but that the Legislature should step up and further clarify the law.

“I thought we were right on the law. The arguments we made have now been vindicated,” Kaul said. “But at a time when the rights of Wisconsinites and Americans are under threat, this case is a stark reminder of how important it is that we fight for our rights, that we advocate for what is in the best interest of the people of our state, and that we stand on the side of freedom. Here today, we were able to achieve a significant victory for the freedom of Wisconsinites.”

Wisconsin’s state and federal Democratic lawmakers responded to the ruling by saying it wasn’t enough, promising to continue working to codify abortion access in law. 

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin said she will continue to work to enact her proposal to ensure women across the country have access to abortion care. 

“Today’s ruling tells women across Wisconsin that we will not go back,” Baldwin said. “Today’s ruling tells women that our government trusts you to make decisions about your own body and your future. Today’s ruling tells women in our state that they are not second-class citizens. But, this fight is not over. Every woman, in every zip code, in every state deserves the same rights and freedoms. I will not stop fighting until we make that a reality and pass my bill to restore the right to abortion nationwide and allow women to make their own health care decisions without interference from judges or politicians.”

State Sen. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) said the Legislature must now pass a bill guaranteeing the right to an abortion. 

“Now that the courts have made it clear that Wisconsin does not have a total abortion ban, we must go further,” Subeck said. “It’s time to protect reproductive rights not just in practice, but in law. We must pass the Abortion Rights Restoration Act to guarantee the right to abortion and eliminate the medically unjustified, politically motivated restrictions that still exist in our state statutes. The people of Wisconsin deserve nothing less than full access to safe and legal reproductive health care without unnecessary barriers and free from judgement.”

In a concurring opinion, Karofsky wrote that interpreting the 1849 law as banning abortion gives the state the authority to “exert total control” over women and “strips women and pregnant people of the dignity and authority to make intimate and personal choices by exposing medical professionals who perform abortions to 15-year prison terms.” 

In her opinion, Karofsky details the history of abortion access in the U.S. and highlights four women who died because of restrictive abortion bans, including the recent deaths of two Black women in Georgia and a Honduran immigrant in Texas as well as the death of her own great-grandmother in Boston in 1929. 

“I tell the stories of Amber, Candi, Josseli, and my great-grandmother Julia to remind us that severe abortion restrictions operate like death warrants,” Karofsky wrote. “Under such restrictions women, children, and pregnant people are denied life-saving medical care while medical professionals are forced to sit idly at their bedsides, unable to do their jobs. Extreme abortion restrictions revive a time in our history driven by misogyny and racism, divorced from medical science; it is a world that must be left behind.” 

In her dissent, Justice Rebecca Bradley accused Karofsky of rewriting history to achieve a desired outcome in the case. 

“Not content with effacing the law, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky rewrites history, erases and insults women by referring to mothers as ‘pregnant people,’ slanders proponents of the pro-life perspective, and broadcasts dangerously false narratives about laws restricting abortion,” Bradley wrote. “Laden with emotion, steeped in myth, and light on the law, the concurrence reads as a parody of progressive politics rather than the opinion of a jurist.”

During the 2022–23 school year, book bans occurred in 153 districts across 33 states, according to a PEN America report. (Getty Images)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that Gov. Tony Evers overstepped his partial veto power by exercising it on a bill to implement new literacy programs in the state. Evers scolded the decision, while lawmakers said it upheld the balance of power and that they plan to release the funds now. 

The decision reverses a lower court, which ruled Evers hadn’t overstepped his power but held that the court did not have the power to compel the Legislature to release the funds. 

The case, Wisconsin State Legislature v. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, involves 2023 Wisconsin Act 100 — one part of a series of measures meant to support the creation of new literacy programs in Wisconsin. 

In the 2023-25 budget, lawmakers and Evers approved $50 million for new literacy programs but the funding went into a supplemental fund, meaning it required the Republican-led Joint Finance Committee to approve its release to the Department of Public Instruction before it could be used.

2023 Wisconsin Act 20  created an Office of Literacy within the Department of Public Instruction, which would be responsible for establishing an early literacy coaching program and awarding grants to schools. Act 100  was a separate law to create a way for the agency to expend the money transferred by the Joint Committee on Finance.

Evers exercised a partial veto when signing Act 100 into law to expand it from covering a “literacy coaching program” to covering a “literacy program.” The action led to lawmakers withholding the funding, saying he didn’t have the authority to change the law’s purpose, the argument at the center of their subsequent lawsuit. Evers’ administration had argued the bill was an appropriation, and therefore it was within the governor’s powers to partially veto it, and that the Legislature was not within its right to withhold the money.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the Legislature had not been improperly withholding the funding from DPI and that Act 100 was not an appropriation, so Evers overstepped the boundaries of the veto power given to him in the Wisconsin State Constitution. The decision overturns part of the ruling of a Dane County judge.

The state constitution gives the governor the power to sign or veto bills in full, and a 1930 amendment gave the governor the power to partially veto “appropriation bills.” Wisconsin’s executive partial veto power is one of the strongest in the country, though it has been limited over the last several decades by constitutional amendments and through Court rulings.

The state Supreme Court’s 7-0 ruling Wednesday reigns in Evers’ partial veto power.

Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote in the majority opinion that the bills “did not set aside public funds for a public purpose” but rather “created accounts into which money could be transferred to fund the programs established under Act 19 [the state budget] and Act 20, and it changed other aspects of the ‘literacy coaching program.’”

“The bill, however, does not set aside any public funds; in fact, it expressly states that “$0” was appropriated,” Bradley wrote.  

Bradley said it was within the Legislature’s authority to pass the bills in the way that it did, and the Constitution only gives the governor power to “veto in part only appropriation bills — not bills that are closely related to appropriation bills.”

“Although the executive branch may be frustrated by constitutional limits on the governor’s power to veto non-appropriation bills, the judiciary must respect the People’s choice to impose them,” Bradley wrote. “This court has no authority to interfere with the Legislature’s choices to structure legislation in a manner designed to insulate non-appropriation bills from the governor’s exercise of the partial veto power.” 

Under the ruling, the law will revert to what it was when the Legislature passed it.

Another recent state Supreme Court ruling upheld another of Evers’ partial vetoes that extended school revenue increases for 400 years, though that decision was split. In that ruling, the Supreme Court said lawmakers could avoid the partial veto power by drafting bills separate from appropriation bills. Republican lawmakers have been considering for years ways to limit Evers’ veto power, and it remains an issue of controversy in the current budget process as lawmakers pass bills without funding attached. 

Evers called the Supreme Court decision “unconscionable” and urged lawmakers to release the nearly $50 million.

“Twelve lawmakers should not be able to obstruct resources that were already approved by the full Legislature and the governor to help get our kids up to speed and ensure they have the skills they need to be successful,” Evers said in a statement. “It is unconscionable that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is allowing the Legislature’s indefinite obstruction to go unchecked.” 

Evers said he would accept the Court’s decision.

“A basic but fundamental responsibility of governors and executives is to dutifully comply with decisions of a court and the judiciary, even if — and, perhaps most importantly, when — we disagree,” Evers said. 

Evers said lawmakers failing to release the funds would be “reckless” and “irresponsible.” 

“Stop messing around with our kids and their futures and get it done,” Evers said. 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) said in a joint statement that the ruling is a “rebuke of the Governor’s attempt to break apart a bipartisan literacy-funding bill and JFC’s constitutional authority to give supplemental funding to agencies.”

“While the Governor wanted to play politics with money earmarked for kids’ reading programs, it is encouraging to see the Court put an end to this game,” Vos and LeMahieu said. “Wisconsin families are the real winners here.”

The end of the state’s fiscal year and deadline for getting the next state budget done is June 30, and if the money isn’t released, it will lapse back into the general fund going back to the state’s $4 billion budget surplus.

Co-chairs of the Joint Finance Committee Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) and Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) said in a joint statement they plan to release the funds now that the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue

“The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision confirmed what we already knew: the Governor’s partial veto of Act 100 was unconstitutional. We are happy to see that the court ruled in favor of the Legislature as a co-equal branch of government and provided us much needed guidance,” the lawmakers said. “Now that there is clarity, we look forward to releasing the $50 million set aside to support kids struggling to read and help implement these important, bipartisan reforms. It is unfortunate that the Governor’s unconstitutional veto has delayed this funding needed by kids and families across the state.”

At a press conference Wednesday afternoon, Democrats on the Joint Finance Committee called for lawmakers to meet before Monday to release the funds. 

“Unless the Joint Finance Committee acts before Monday, those kids and those school districts will not see another dime. Wisconsinites are tired of Republicans playing politics with our public schools,” Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) said. She noted that Evers had requested an additional $80 million for literacy in his budget proposal, but lawmakers have so far not included that. 

Republican lawmakers have approved the K-12 portion of the state budget, which includes an increase for the state’s special education reimbursement rate from about 32% to 37.5% and a 90% rate for high cost special education in the second year of the budget, along with funding for other priorities. Democrats and education advocates have been critical, saying that the budgeted amounts are not enough to ease the financial burdens public schools are facing.

Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha) said Democrats haven’t heard from Republican lawmakers about working on the budget.

“We are ready to work,” Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said. “We would like to see immediately some action on the funding that is going to disappear if it’s not spent by June 30th, particularly the literacy funding. The Joint Finance Committee has also refused to release other funds, including $125 million to combat PFAS and $15 million to support Chippewa Valley hospitals.

Roys said it was “great to hear” that the co-chairs said they would release the funds and that she hopes he “stands by his word.” 

State Superintendent Jill Underly also urged the release of the funds, saying part of the compromise struck by Evers and lawmakers was “to provide districts with funding to implement new strategies and change practices” and districts have been working to implement the literacy changes but have yet to see funding.

“It is devastating that despite bipartisan agreement on how to proceed, we have been stuck in neutral,” Underly said. 

Peggy Wirtz-Olsen, president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), the state’s largest teachers’ union, said in a statement that Republican lawmakers are “bent on using schools as pawns for political payback” and are giving “lip service to literacy, while leaving educators without funding to do our job.” 

“On the cusp of another state budget, these same politicians again threaten to underfund public schools instead of working across the aisle for the good of students,” Wirtz-Olsen said, adding that WEAC will continue to advocate for funding from the state.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 3 minutes

A Wisconsin appeals court judge who was an outspoken supporter of abortion rights in the state Legislature announced Tuesday that she is running for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, taking on an incumbent conservative justice who sided with President Donald Trump in his failed attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Wisconsin Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor, 57, becomes the first liberal candidate to enter the 2026 race.

The election next year won’t be for control of the court in the battleground state because liberals already hold a 4-3 majority. The race is for a seat held by conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley, who said last month she is running for reelection.

Liberals won the majority of the court in 2024, and they will hold it until at least 2028 thanks to the victory in April by Democratic-backed Susan Crawford over a conservative candidate supported by Trump and billionaire Elon Musk.

Musk spent at least $3 million on this year’s Wisconsin Supreme Court race himself, and groups he funds spent nearly $19 million more. But Musk said Tuesday he will be spending less on political campaigns in the future, which could mean less money for Bradley.

This year’s race broke spending records and became an early litmus test for Trump and Musk in the presidential swing state that Trump won in 2024 and 2016, but lost in 2020. Crawford won by 10 points, marking the 12th victory out of 15 races for a Democratic-backed statewide candidate in Wisconsin.

Liberals have a chance to expand their majority on the court next year to 5-2. If Bradley wins, the 4-3 liberal majority would be maintained.

In an interview Monday with The Associated Press, Taylor said she is running “to make sure that people get a fair shake, that the judiciary remains independent and impartial and that people have confidence in the judiciary.”

She accused Bradley of prioritizing a right-wing agenda, noting her siding with Trump in his unsuccessful attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Bradley did not immediately respond to an email Tuesday seeking comment. But Wisconsin Republican Party Chair Brian Schimming called Taylor a “radical” and said she will have to answer for her “extremely partisan record in the Legislature and on the bench.”

Taylor was an outspoken supporter of abortion rights, gun control and unions while representing Wisconsin’s liberal capital city Madison as a Democrat in the Legislature from 2011 to 2020. Before that, she worked as an attorney and as public policy director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.

Her past comments and positions will almost certainly be used by conservatives to argue that Taylor is biased and must not hear cases involving many topics including abortion, redistricting and union rights.

Taylor said her record as a judge over the past five years shows she can be objective.

“There is no room for partisanship in the judiciary,” she said.

Taylor said she would not step aside from a case just because it dealt with abortion, union rights or redistricting. Whether to recuse would be a case-by-case decision based on the facts, she said.

“There are cases where, if you do not feel you can be impartial, you need to recuse and I have done that,” Taylor said. “But whole topics? I would say no.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling within weeks in one challenge it heard last year to the state’s 1849 abortion ban law. It has agreed to hear another case brought by Planned Parenthood that seeks to make abortion a constitutional right, but has yet to schedule a date for oral arguments. That case most likely will be heard before the winner of next year’s election takes the seat in August 2026.

Taylor was outspoken in opposition to then-Gov. Scott Walker’s signature law, known as Act 10, that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most public workers. A Dane County circuit judge struck down most of the law as unconstitutional in December, and the Supreme Court is considering whether to hear an appeal.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court faces a number of other high-profile cases, including a pair filed earlier this month seeking to overturn the state’s Republican-drawn congressional maps.

Taylor was appointed to the Dane County Circuit Court in 2020 by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. She won election to the state appeals court in 2023.

Bradley, the incumbent, was appointed to the Supreme Court by Walker in 2015 and won election to a full term in 2016.

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.

Judge Chris Taylor, who as legislator fought for abortion rights, running for Wisconsin 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.

Wisconsin Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor in her Dane County chambers. | Photo courtesy Chris for Justice campaign

Appeals court judge and former Democratic state Assembly member Chris Taylor announced Tuesday she’s running for a seat on the state Supreme Court in next year’s spring election. 

Taylor, who was elected to the Court of Appeals in 2023, will run against conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley in a race that will decide if liberals expand their majority on the Court. 

The two previous state Supreme Court elections, which consolidated the current 4-3 liberal majority, broke national spending records for judicial races. While the stakes won’t be as high in next year’s race, Bradley has been a prominent supporter of conservative causes since she was appointed to the Court by Gov. Scott Walker in 2015. 

Bradley sided with President Donald Trump in his effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election and has been a vocal member of the right-wing Federalist Society. 

The election takes place just seven months before the midterm elections when statewide offices including governor and attorney general, as well as control of the Legislature, will be up for grabs — giving the state a view of the voting public’s mood before November. 

Taylor previously worked as Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin’s public policy director and served in the Assembly from 2013 until she was appointed to the Dane County Circuit Court in 2020. 

“As an attorney, public servant, and now as a judge, I’ve always been committed to making sure everyone is able to access our justice system,” Taylor said in a statement. “The law is a powerful tool for protecting Wisconsinites, holding people accountable, and making our state stronger.” 

“Justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court must be fair, independent, and impartial,” Taylor said. “Justice Rebecca Bradley has proven that she’s more interested in pushing her own right-wing political agenda than protecting Wisconsinites’ rights and freedoms. Extremism and partisanship have no place on our state’s highest court. Everyone who comes before the court deserves to be heard, respected, and treated equally – that’s exactly what I’ll do as a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice.”

While Taylor has been elected to office six times, she has only faced a Republican opponent once. She ran unopposed for her Madison-area Assembly seat in 2012, 2014 and 2018. When she had an opponent in 2016, she won with 83% of the vote. She also ran unopposed for re-election to the Dane County Court in 2021 and for her seat on the District IV Court of Appeals in 2023. 

In a statement, Republican Party of Wisconsin Chair Brian Schimming noted that she’s never had to win the votes of people outside of heavily Democratic Dane County.

“Chris Taylor’s extreme partisan record has never been on full display outside of Dane County,” Schimming said. “After ‘liberal express lane’ elections in Dane County and an appointment from Tony Evers, Radical Democrat Chris Taylor will now have to answer for her extremely partisan record in the Legislature and on the bench.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

This story was published in partnership with the Center for Media and Democracy, 

The more than $100 million spent on this spring’s Supreme Court election in Wisconsin set a new national record for spending on a state judicial race. The figure almost doubles the previous record of $51 million, which donors poured into the Wisconsin Supreme Court race in 2023. 

“The spending in this race is an indication of just how dominant state high courts have become in the biggest political fights playing out today,” Douglas Keith, a senior counsel in the Brennan Center’s Judiciary Program, told the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). He pointed to the “growing recognition” of the significance of state courts in ruling on both challenges to election laws and abortion rights since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022. 

The record spending on the 2025 Wisconsin race, the pathways the money traveled and the outsized influence of a few major donors raise questions about the future and fairness of judicial elections in Wisconsin and beyond. 

Outside spending

The campaign for liberal candidate Susan Crawford — who ultimately won the election by 10 points — raised more than $28.3 million, while her conservative counterpart Brad Schimel pulled in over $15.1 million in campaign funding, according to a CMD analysis of Wisconsin Ethics Commission filings. 

Special interest and ideological political action committees (PACs) accounted for the majority of the spending, dropping almost $57 million on both the liberal and conservative candidates. Thirteen of those outside groups spent more than $1 million each (and in many cases, well over $1 million) on the race, for a total of $48.8 million — more than the combined total raised by the two campaigns. 

 

“Big money has ruined us,” Janine Geske, a retired Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, told CMD. “It distresses me. It just goes to the heart of the independence of the judiciary.” 

Several of the highest spending groups are linked to just a small number of individuals. Billionaire Charles Koch’s astroturf operation Americans for Prosperity spent more than $3.3 million, while shipping giant Richard Uihlein’s Fair Courts America super PAC spent over $4.4 million. 

Few backers drew more attention than Trump’s top campaign donor Elon Musk, who funneled nearly $18.7 million into the race to boost Schimel through his America PAC and the Building America’s Future PAC, a group he has reportedly funded in part since 2022.

“The Musk involvement helped politicize [and polarize] the race,” Charles Franklin, professor of law and director of the Marquette Law School Poll, told CMD. “That was a brand new element.” 

There was a strong turnout in the April election, with 51% of Wisconsin’s eligible voters casting ballots — remarkably high for an election in which the state Supreme Court was the highest office on the ballot. 

“Voter turnout is up because the race is important, but it’s also up because so much money is being poured into it,” Franklin said, noting a 15-year rise in turnout in the state’s elections for its highest court. 

Political party loophole

Although Wisconsin Supreme Court elections are officially nonpartisan, the state’s Republican and Democratic parties played major roles. “It’s been so obviously a de facto partisan race for several cycles,” said Franklin, who also highlighted the significance of endorsements from President Trump and former President Obama in the election. 

The maximum amount that can be legally given to the campaign committee of a candidate running for the Wisconsin Supreme Court is $20,000. However, individuals can make unlimited contributions to a political party. Some donors use this as a legal loophole to funnel money to judicial candidates by first giving money to the state party, which then transfers the funds to the candidate’s campaign committee. 

In the most recent election, the Wisconsin Democratic Party gave more than $10.4 million to Crawford while the state GOP contributed over $9.5 million to Schimel, according to a CMD analysis of Wisconsin Ethics Commission filings. The contributions from the state parties accounted for almost two-thirds of Schimel’s overall campaign spending and more than a third of Crawford’s. 

The top donor to one of the two major political parties in Wisconsin is Diane Hendricks, who has given just under $3.6 million so far this year to the state GOP. She is the owner of Hendricks Holdings and a co-founder of ABC Roofing Supplies, the largest roofing supply company in the country. 

 

In addition to the $18.7 million Musk spent through PACs, he also gave $3 million to the Wisconsin GOP this year. Similarly, Richard Uihlein has given nearly $1.7 million to the

Wisconsin GOP in 2025 on top of the $4.4 million his PAC dropped on the race. His wife, Elizabeth Uihlein, gave more than $2.1 million to the state party. The couple each sent the maximum individual contribution of $20,000 to Schimel’s campaign as well. 

Major donations also flowed in on the Democratic side. Billionaire investor George Soros gave $2 million and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker gave $1.5 million to Wisconsin’s Democratic Party. 

Reform prospects 

The Marquette Law School Poll conducted in February found that 61% of respondents believe party contributions reduce the independence of judges. 

“It’s crucial that the public be able to look at courts and think they’re doing something different than raw politics,” Keith said. “This kind of an election makes it really hard for them to think of courts that way if the process for picking judges looks like the process for picking a U.S. senator.” 

Geske, who supports judicial elections in principle, shares that concern. “If there is no faith, we don’t have a system. It doesn’t work.” 

Yet, in that same poll, 90% of respondents said it was better to elect rather than appoint state Supreme Court justices. Wisconsin is one of 14 states that rely on nonpartisan elections to choose their Supreme Court justices, a practice it has followed since becoming a state in 1848. 

While the Marquette Law School Poll suggests there is broad public support for electing judges, record-breaking spending on those races raises concerns about judicial independence. 

The rising tide of outside spending is unlikely to recede, particularly given the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) allowing unlimited outside spending on elections, including for judicial races. 

“Citizens United really set us back,” Geske said. “It destroyed the ability to have an independent judicial race where people can really look at the quality of the candidate versus the politics of it.” 

In 2017, she was one of 54 judges who petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court for stricter ethics rules to prevent judges from hearing cases involving major campaign contributors. But since the petition was ultimately rejected, no state rule currently requires a judge’s recusal or automatic disqualification from hearing such a case. The decision to recuse is left up to each individual justice in each case. 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009) held that a judge’s recusal is required when the campaign support received is so significant that it creates a “serious risk of actual bias,” but that standard has rarely been applied since the decision.

Geske had hoped that Wisconsin’s highest court would revisit the possibility of stricter ethics rules in this context but now thinks that is unlikely given the significant financial contributions several justices have received. She believes that stronger guidelines rather than requiring mandatory recusal may be a more viable option. 

Even if recusal guidelines were strengthened, Geske noted there would be practical complications if a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice stepped aside from a case. Unlike some other states, Wisconsin has no system for replacing a recused justice. If one of the seven justices steps aside, the court could be left with risking a deadlocked 3–3 decision. 

Beyond the question of independence, Keith said more could be done to enhance transparency in Wisconsin judicial elections overall, such as requiring more frequent financial disclosures. “While we know a lot about what groups were spending and how much they spent, we know very little about where their money was coming from,” he pointed out. “A lot of it is informed guesswork.” 

“The unprecedented and obscenely high amount of political money being raised and spent in Wisconsin Supreme Court elections is a fairly new and horrific development in our state,” wrote Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, in 2024. “It wasn’t always this way here and it cannot and should not continue.” 

Heck pointed out that Wisconsin enacted the Impartial Justice Act in 2009, which provided public financing for state Supreme Court campaigns in exchange for a voluntary spending cap and a ban on soliciting private contributions. However, Republican Governor Scott Walker and the GOP-controlled legislature repealed the measure and dramatically weakened Wisconsin’s campaign finance laws. 

“We went from being the progressive good government promised land to the political wasteland of the country,” Heck said. 

Common Cause has called for updating and reinstating the 2009 reforms, along with strengthening recusal rules and prohibiting coordination between campaigns and outside groups. 

A recent poll by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign found that almost three of four Wisconsin voters want limits on outside PACs, but that reform is not possible until the Citizens United decision is overturned. 

Next year’s Supreme Court election 

Major reforms are unlikely before the next election in April 2026, when conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley will be seeking to retain her seat. Spending will likely be lower than in this year’s race given that the court’s new 4–3 liberal majority will not be in play.

However, the scale and tone of the 2025 race may influence the 2026 election and others in different ways. Geske said she knows judges who would have previously considered running for the state Supreme Court but are no longer interested. 

“When you get into these kinds of numbers and that kind of race, they’re not going to put themselves and their families through it,” she said. “It narrows the number of people who are willing to run for the court.” 

Geske said that if judicial elections had been like this when she ran in 1993, she wouldn’t have run. “When I was running, we really tried to have bipartisan support,” she said. “Now it really is: ‘Whose side are you on?’” 

“I think that will continue and, as a result, I think that big money will continue to follow.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE