Diana E. Murphy federal courthouse is shown in Minneapolis Friday, May 17, 2024. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Patrick J. Schiltz, chief judge of the federal district court in Minnesota and a former clerk to conservative icon Antonin Scalia, ripped the Trump administration for ignoring dozens of court orders in a ruling Wednesday.

Schiltz had previously demanded to see U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Todd Lyons for a Friday contempt proceeding.

After ICE released a detainee identified in court documents as Juan T.R., Schiltz canceled the hearing but also blasted the government for undermining the rule of law by ignoring judicial orders.

“That does not end the court’s concerns, however,” he wrote, attaching an appendix identifying 96 court orders that ICE violated in 74 cases.

“The extent of ICE’s noncompliance is almost certainly substantially understated,” he continued. “This list should give pause to anyone — no matter his or her political beliefs — who cares about the rule of law.”

Schiltz is a noted figure in conservative legal circles, making his sharp order all the more notable. He was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

The last straw for Schiltz was the officials’ failure to follow a Jan. 14 order to grant a timely bond hearing for Juan T.R., who Schiltz said remained in custody as of Friday. The Monday order excoriated Lyons and his colleagues for causing “significant hardship” for Minnesota residents caught up in the federal dragnet, many of whom “have lawfully lived and worked in the United States for years and done absolutely nothing wrong,” he emphasized.

Schiltz described scenarios in which detainees were held longer than necessary; removed to detention facilities elsewhere in the country; or released hundreds or even thousands of miles from home with no arrangements made for their return.

Deputy State Superintendent Tom McCarthy speaks to Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) after delivering testimony on AB 678. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin school districts would be required to establish policies on appropriate communication between students and staff members before the next school year, under a bill that received a public hearing Thursday. 

The bill comes in reaction to a report from the Capital Times in November that found over 200 investigations into teacher licenses due to allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023. Another bill coauthored by Nedweski, AB 677, making grooming a felony crime in Wisconsin received a public hearing earlier this week.

“Many of these cases begin with the erosion of professional boundaries when a school employee starts communicating with the students inappropriately often outside of school hours and without parent knowledge usually through the use of text messaging and social media,”  Nedweski told the Assembly Education Committee. “While the vast majority of school staff use these tools responsibly, a small number have exploited that access — sometimes leading to devastating consequences.”

AB 678 would require Wisconsin school boards to adopt a policy on appropriate communications between students and employees or volunteers in the school district.

“This bill preserves local control. It does not mandate a one-size-fits-all policy; instead it allows each school district to determine what communication policies work best for its own community,” Nedweski said.

The policies would need to include specific consequences for staff who violate the policy and specify that it applies to communications during and outside of school hours. The policy would need to include standards for appropriate content and methods of communication.

An amendment to the bill, which Nedweski said came at the request of the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) and other stakeholders, would require annual training for employees on identifying, preventing and reporting grooming and professional boundary violations. 

The Department of Public Instruction has worked with Nedweski on the legislation and supports it. 

“We think this is a good effort to get the conversation started,” Deputy State Superintendent Tom McCarthy said, noting the agency has been working on policy related to appropriate communication for over eight years. He said there are a lot of districts that are using technology for software that allows them to track communications. 

“There’s a bit of a dichotomy with this issue. We know that in order to educate kids we need to foster and build relationships with students and families, and so we do encourage appropriate communication in every school district,” McCarthy said, adding that the policy and training would be critical. “You will find some circumstances where you’re going to want communication and it might not be as neat and tidy as you’d expect it to be. There are always emergency circumstances where a teacher might need to call a student directly… so we want some policies to be flexible to address those areas.” 

Chris Kulow, director of government relations for the Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB), said the organization had some concerns about the language in the bill related to consequences. He testified for information only, noting the issue of communication between staff and students is not new to school districts. 

“Although recent news coverage and increased interest from state policymakers may make this appear to be a new issue, it is not new to schools. School boards have long recognized the need for policies addressing appropriate communication and professional boundaries between pupils and staff. Many districts have already adopted such policies,” Kulow said. “This bill may require some districts to update existing policies to reflect its specific language and to the extent it prompts boards to review and strengthen policies is beneficial.” 

Kulow said complying with the provision related to consequences as currently written would be challenging as violations can vary widely and require a wide range of responses. The organization wanted the provision removed, but said Nedweski wanted something related to be included in the bill. 

“Attempting to predetermine specific consequences for every specific scenario may be impractical and could complicate the disciplinary process,” Kulow said. “We suggested revising the language in the bill to read that ‘the school board shall include in the policy a range of consequences up to and including termination.’”

The bill currently only covers Wisconsin public schools, though Nedweski told Democratic lawmakers, who expressed concerns about the bill not including the state’s private voucher schools, that she is working on an amendment. 

“We need to protect all kids. This is such a growing problem. We’ve seen just an increase in inappropriate communication,” Nedweski said.

Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), also asked whether lawmakers would be open to including funding for school districts to support the implementation of the bill. 

Nedweski said she hasn’t had any requests for funding from schools or the DPI throughout the development of the bill.

“I think it’s a serious enough issue, a weighty enough issue, that all schools can find the resources to craft a policy and do some training to make sure they are protecting children,” Nedweski said, adding that DPI already has modules related to this type of training.

McCarthy said additional funding, including the release of $1 million set aside for the agency in the state budget, could help speed along the process. Those funds, which sit in a supplemental fund, can only be released by the Joint Finance Committee. He said without the funds the agency could potentially have to cut down on staff and other areas of its operations, which could affect how quickly work is done.

Under the bill in its current form, school boards would need to adopt a policy by July 1, 2026. 

McCarthy said DPI would like to see an amendment that would move the deadline for policy adoption to a later date, saying DPI may need a longer “runway” to ensure the agency has time to change and update policies and training if needed. He told the Wisconsin Examiner that some of the changes could be necessary if Nedweski’s grooming bill becomes law. 

Rich Judge, assistant state superintendent for the division of government and public affairs, also noted that school boards would need to have time to meet, develop and approve policies. 

Nedweski said in a written statement to the Examiner that she is taking the agency’s suggestion under consideration and is discussing potential dates. One potential date could be Sept. 1, 2026, she said. 

“If AB 678 is signed into law, the goal is for school districts to have these policies in place for the 2026–27 school year,” Nedweski said. She noted that some of the agency’s concerns are tied to her other bill. “This only underscores the importance of passing AB 677 and getting it signed into law promptly to ensure that districts across Wisconsin can take the necessary steps to better protect students in school.”

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• Judge Mark McGinnis will resign Feb. 1, but won’t face criminal charges after jailing a man during a probation hearing for an unrelated financial dispute in December 2021.

• The special prosecutor, La Crosse County District Attorney Tim Gruenke, said the decision was based on McGinnis’ decision to resign, acknowledgement he could have handled case differently and concerns about the separation of powers.

• The cement contractor who was jailed for three days said he may pursue a lawsuit now that the criminal case is resolved.

An Appleton-area judge won’t face criminal charges for jailing a man during a probation hearing over an unrelated financial dispute, but he will resign in February before his term expires, a special prosecutor assigned to the case said Thursday.

Outagamie County Judge Mark McGinnis had jailed cement contractor Tyler Barth in December 2021 over a private money dispute that was not a matter before the court. McGinnis accused Barth of theft, but Barth had not been arrested or charged with a crime. Wisconsin Watch first reported the case in January 2024.

La Crosse County District Attorney Tim Gruenke was appointed as a special prosecutor in the case in March 2024, more than a year after the Wisconsin Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation.

“That’s crazy, the fact that nobody’s going to prosecute him for it, that’s insane,” Barth said in an interview Thursday. “If he’s retiring, I guess that’s good, he can’t do that to nobody else,” but “it’s just bullshit, in my opinion.”

Gruenke said several factors led him not to charge: McGinnis had acknowledged through his attorney that he could have handled the matter differently; McGinnis’ decision to retire; and concerns about the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of government over charging a judge for a “mistake” made on the bench.

“This isn’t a case to test those parameters, especially since he acknowledged that he should have done it differently,” Gruenke said in an interview.

McGinnis informed Gov. Tony Evers in a letter Wednesday of his retirement effective Feb. 1, which he said would follow his 55th birthday and make him eligible for retirement benefits. McGinnis did not mention the investigation. He said his plans include educating judges in the U.S. and internationally.

McGinnis and his attorney Michelle Jacobs, the former top federal prosecutor in Milwaukee, did not reply immediately to calls and emails requesting comment.

Barth had appeared before McGinnis for a probation review hearing on a felony conviction for fleeing an officer. McGinnis accused him of stealing several thousand dollars from a cement contracting customer.

The customer’s spouse worked in the same courthouse for another Outagamie County judge.

Even though Barth had not been arrested or charged with theft, McGinnis ordered him jailed for 90 days, saying he would release Barth as soon as he repaid the customer.

The 32-year-old Fremont resident spent three days in jail before Fond du Lac attorney Kirk Everson intervened and persuaded McGinnis to release him.

Barth said Thursday he would seek an attorney in hopes of filing a lawsuit.

McGinnis was first elected in 2005, at age 34, and has been re-elected every six years without opposition. Most recently he was re-elected in April 2023 for a term that runs through July 2029.

Wisconsin judgeships are nonpartisan.

Gruenke, a Democrat, is a 30-year prosecutor, including the past 18 years as the La Crosse County district attorney.

Gruenke was appointed as special prosecutor by the Outagamie County Circuit Court in March 2024 after Outagamie County District Attorney Melinda Tempelis determined it would be a conflict of interest for her office to handle the case.

Legal experts agree judges have unparalleled latitude for taking away someone’s liberty, especially if the person is on probation. But invoking criminal penalties to compel action in an unrelated dispute arguably goes beyond a judge’s lawful authority.

Wisconsin legal experts said they weren’t aware of any instance in which a sitting Wisconsin judge was charged with a crime for actions taken as a judge.

Experts also had said they did not expect criminal charges against McGinnis, but that a referral to the state Judicial Commission would be possible. 

With McGinnis’ announced retirement, it’s unclear if the commission, which could take up the matter on its own, would do so.

Any matters before the Judicial Commission are generally confidential. They become public only if the commission files a complaint against a judge or if the judge being investigated waives confidentiality.

Editor’s note: This story corrects the spelling of Kirk Everson’s name.

Wisconsin judge will resign, won’t face criminal charges for jailing cement contractor 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.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• A special prosecutor was appointed in March 2024 to look into Judge Mark McGinnis’ decision to jail a concrete contractor in December 2021 over a money dispute during a probation hearing for an unrelated crime. The money dispute was with a courthouse employee.

• The special prosecutor, La Crosse County District Attorney Tim Gruenke, said he plans to make a decision on the case around Labor Day.

• Criminal charges against a judge for a decision made from the bench are possible, but unlikely and without recent precedent. Judicial misconduct cases have been reviewed by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission since 1978, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court has the final say on any penalty.

A special prosecutor expects to decide in early September whether to take the extraordinary step of filing criminal charges against an Appleton-area judge over his actions from the bench.

The special prosecutor, La Crosse County District Attorney Tim Gruenke, declined further comment to Wisconsin Watch on his investigation of Outagamie County Circuit Court Judge Mark McGinnis.

Wisconsin Watch reported in January 2024 that McGinnis’ actions were the focus of a Wisconsin Department of Justice criminal investigation that had been ongoing for more than a year. The March 2024 appointment of the special prosecutor has not previously been reported.

McGinnis had jailed cement contractor Tyler Barth in December 2021 over a private dispute that was not a matter before the court. 

When Barth appeared before McGinnis for a probation review hearing, on a felony conviction for fleeing an officer, McGinnis accused him of stealing several thousand dollars from a cement contracting customer.

The customer worked in the same courthouse for another Outagamie County judge. 

Even though Barth had not been arrested or charged with theft, McGinnis ordered him jailed for 90 days, saying he would release Barth as soon as he repaid the customer.

“I think it’s definitely crazy, just lock a guy up with no charge, no pending charge, no nothing and then get away with it,” Barth told Wisconsin Watch in a recent interview.

The 32-year-old Fremont resident said he spent three days in jail before Fond du Lac attorney Kirk Evenson intervened and persuaded McGinnis to release him.

“I just don’t think the guy should be able to do this to anyone else,” Barth said.

Barth later settled the money dispute with his customer. An attorney advised him it would be difficult to win civil damages against McGinnis because of judicial immunity, but Barth is waiting to see what happens with the criminal case before deciding whether to pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit.

McGinnis did not reply to requests seeking comment.

McGinnis was first elected in 2005, at age 34, and has been re-elected each time, without opposition. Most recently he was re-elected in April 2023 for a term that runs through July 2029.

Wisconsin judgeships are nonpartisan.

Gruenke, a Democrat, is a 30-year prosecutor, including the past 18 years as the La Crosse County district attorney. 

Gruenke was appointed as special prosecutor by the Outagamie County Circuit Court in March 2024 after Outagamie County District Attorney Melinda Tempelis determined it would be a conflict of interest for her office to handle the case.

Legal experts agree judges have unparalleled latitude for taking away someone’s liberty, especially if the person is on probation. But invoking criminal penalties to compel action in an unrelated dispute arguably goes beyond a judge’s lawful authority.

Judicial historian Joseph Ranney, an adjunct professor at Marquette University Law School, said he is not aware of any instance in which a sitting Wisconsin judge was charged with a crime for actions taken as a judge.

Jeremiah Van Hecke, executive director of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, also said he was not aware of such a case.

Since 1978, the Judicial Commission has been the body responsible for investigating complaints against judges, which are then referred to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has published 31 decisions that carried some form of punishment, often a reprimand, including several for actions taken from the bench.

In 1980, Milwaukee County Judge Christ Seraphim was suspended for three years without pay for a number of violations, including “retaliatory use of bail.” In 1985, retaliatory use of bail was one of the charges brought against Rusk County Judge Donald Sterlinske, who was ordered removed from office even though he had resigned.

Former state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman has agreed to a three-year suspension of his law license, but is awaiting formal action in that case. It centers on his work as a special counsel investigating the 2020 presidential election, not his work as a judge.

Marquette University law professor Chad Oldfather said, though it’s unlikely, McGinnis could be charged with misconduct in public office. That state law prohibits, among other things, officials from knowingly exceeding their lawful authority. 

But a referral to the Judicial Commission seems much more likely than a criminal charge, Oldfather said.

The commission could also initiate an investigation on its own.

A special prosecutor, Sauk County District Attorney Patricia Barrett, decided not to file criminal charges following a 2011 incident in which state Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley accused Justice David Prosser of choking her during an argument in a justice’s office.  

The Judicial Commission recommended that the Supreme Court discipline Prosser for misconduct, but the court took no action for lack of a quorum of four of the seven justices. Three justices recused themselves because they were witnesses to the incident. 

Any matters before the Judicial Commission are generally confidential. They become public only if the commission files a complaint against a judge or if the judge being investigated waives confidentiality.

There have been criminal charges filed in connection with a judge’s role as a judge, though they were not in response to official actions taken by a judge. 

In April, federal prosecutors charged Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan with two crimes for allegedly obstructing Immigration and Customs Enforcement from arresting a criminal defendant in her courtroom. Her case is pending.

In 2019, a Winnebago County jury found Leonard Kachinsky, a municipal court judge, guilty of misdemeanor violation of a harassment restraining order involving his court manager.

Special prosecutor weighing whether to criminally charge Outagamie County judge 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.