Wisconsin Supreme Court

From Judgepedia

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is the highest appellate court in the state of Wisconsin. Seven justices, selected in non-partisan elections, sit on the state's court of last resort.

Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over original actions, appeals from lower courts, and regulation or administration of the practice of law in Wisconsin. Most commonly, the Supreme Court reviews cases that were appealed from the Court of Appeals. The Court receives roughly 800 to 1,000 petitions for Court of Appeals review a year; 20-30 petitions for bypass, and a similar number of certifications. The court accepts about 100 petitions for review, very few of the petitions for bypass, and a small number of the approximately 10 petitions for original action received each year.^[1]

Case load

In the 2007-2008 term, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued 109 opinions; this is one opinion less than the year before.^[2] Of the 109 opinions, 34 were on attorney discipline cases, one was a judicial discipline cases, 49 were civil cases, and 25 were for criminal cases. None were issued on bar admission cases.

The court's justices

Selection of justices

The court is composed of seven justices who are elected to ten year terms in state-wide, non-partisan elections. Only one justice may be elected in any year. In the event of a vacancy on the court, the governor has the power to appoint an individual to the vacancy, but that justice must then stand for election in the first year where no other justice's term expires. Two current justices, Abrahamson and Prosser, were appointed by the then-Governor. A third appointee, Louis Butler, lost his election bid in 2008 to Michael Gableman.

Qualifications

Per Article VII, Section 24 of the Wisconsin Constitution, to qualify for a judgeship in Wisconsin a person must be:

• Licensed to practice law in Wisconsin for a minimum of five years
• Under the age of 70

For the ballot access checklist to become a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, click here. For the campaign finance checklist to become a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, click here.

Current justices

See Wisconsin Supreme Court elections

While justices are selected in non-partisan elections, a party identification is provided if a justice is generally associated with a political party.

Chief justice

The justice with the longest continuous service on the court serves as the chief justice, unless that justice declines, in which case the role passes to the next senior justice of the court. In such a case, the declining justice continues to serve as a justice on the court. Shirley Abrahamson is the current Chief Justice.

2009 judicial campaign

On April 7, 2009, Justice Shirley Abrahamson faced challenger Judge Randy Koschnick in April for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Abrahamson retained her seat. Visit 2009 state Supreme Court elections for more information on the election.

Notable judicial campaigns

• In 2009, Circuit Court Judge Randy Koschnick challenged Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. Judge Koschnick accused Justice Abrahamson of "legislating from the bench," of "judicial activism" and of being "outside the mainstream" on issues such as crime and punishment.^[3] Justice Abrahamson stressed the many endorsements she received from law enforcement and other judges and her ideology of applying the law to the facts, one case at a time.^[4] Justice Abrahamson was returned to the court for another 10-year term by a margin of 59% to 41%.^[5]
• Wisconsin Supreme Court Race (2008)
• Lisa Neubauer versus William Gleisner

Notable decisions

Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban

Background

On April 9, 2009, the Fourth Circuit Wisconsin Court of Appeals ordered that the case of McConkey v. J.B. Van Hollen, et.al would be heard by the State's highest court. William McConkey, who is a professor at University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh claimed that the ban that was approved by voters during the 2006 election, put two issues to voters at the same time. A Dane County judge dismissed the case last year, and McConkey appealed to the Fourth Circuit Wisconsin Court of Appeals^[6].

The Madison-based court on in its ruling asked the Supreme Court to take the case. The appeals court says the case presents several new legal issues that should be decided by the higher court^[6].

The referendum asked whether to rewrite the constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman and outlaw the state from granting a similar legal status to unmarried individuals. Nearly 60 percent of voters approved^[6].

Decision

The hearing took place on November 3, 2009. A decision is expected by the summer of 2010.^[7]

Menasha Corporation

A ruling by the court in favor of Menasha Corp could worsen the state's budget woes. The ruling involved the collection of sales tax on computer software purchased by Menasha Corp.

State law exempts custom software from sales and use tax, but the Wisconsin Department of Revenue claimed that the software purchased by the company was not custom software even though Menasha paid $17 million to customize it. The Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission initially ruled in favor of the company, but the state then appealed that decision to the Dane County Circuit Court where Judge Steven Ebert overturned the appeals commission ruling.

According to the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau the ruling could mean that the state would lose $300 million in sales tax refunds to companies which had already paid similar claims and in diminished sales tax collections. ^[8]

Access to government records

• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. Department of Administration. In this pending appeal, the court has been asked to overturn a lower court ruling that says that a collective bargaining agreement between a union and a state agency can forbid the agency from releasing names of public employees.

• WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex. In this June 2008 decision, the court ruled that three Wisconsin municipalities did not violate the Wisconsin Open Records Law when they failed to give a real estate listing service access to property assessment records in a computer database. The decision ran to 1,143 pages.

• State of Wisconsin v. Beaver Dam Area Development Corporation This 4-2 decision of the court from 2008 clarifies when nominally private entities (in this case, the Beaver Dam Area Development Corporation) are subject to the public records and open meetings laws.

• Hempel v. City of Baraboo. In this 2005 decision, the court upheld a lower court order denying a records request made under the Wisconsin Open Records Law by Hal Hempel, a police officer of the Baraboo police department. Hempel sought records of an internal investigation conducted about allegations against him to the effect that he had harassed female officers in the department. The case centered on two key components of the Wisconsin Open Records law: Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) and Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(am) - and the statutory exceptions therein. Abrahamson dissented from the majority, and was joined by Bradley and Butler.

Historic cases

20th Century

Risser v. Klauser (1997) This case is one of a number of cases focusing on the governor’s veto power that have come to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The case began and ended in the state’s high Court, with the Court taking original action rather than sitting as an appellate court. Its 4-3 decision served to further define the veto power of the governor and the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.^[9]

Libertarian Party of Wisconsin v. Thompson (1996) This case began and ended in the Wisconsin Supreme Court; the Court took original action rather than sitting (as it normally does) as an appellate court. The case illustrates the restrictions the state Constitution places on private laws and laws contracting public debt. While the Court has shot down taxes collected for a specific purpose in other cases, it found here that Wisconsin Act 56, which created a tax in five counties to raise money for a new Milwaukee Brewers stadium, served a legitimate public purpose by encouraging economic development and tourism and reducing unemployment.^[10]

Thompson v. Benson (1996) This case illustrates the restrictions the Wisconsin Constitution places on legislative enactments and the checks and balances that exist in a three-branch system of government. Here, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stopped an attempt to take powers away from the elected state superintendent of schools and give them to gubernatorial appointees.^[11]

State v. Mitchell (1992) This case illustrates legislative action against bigotry and the possible conflict between such laws and the free speech guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. Here, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, on a 5-2 vote, found unconstitutional a state law which enhanced the penalty for a crime if the victim was selected on the basis of characteristics such as race or sexual orientation. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision.^[12]

State v. Stevens (1985) In the 1980s and 1990s many cases have come to the courts challenging the validity of a search or seizure under the federal and state constitutions. This is one such case. In this case, a divided Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that police may seize and search a person’s garbage without a warrant.^[13]

State v. Yoder (1971) In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court weighed the state’s interest in educating children against the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. The Court held that a state law requiring children to attend school full time was unconstitutional because it infringed on the freedom of the Amish to practice their religion. In reaching this decision, the Court distinguished itself from courts around the country that had upheld compulsory education. The case was appealed to (and affirmed by) the U.S. Supreme Court.^[14]

State ex rel. Drankovich v. Murphy (1945) In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court strengthened the right to legal counsel for defendants in criminal matters, determining that trial judges must make these individuals aware of this right and that a lawyer must be provided at public expense, when necessary, even if the defendant does not request counsel.^[15]

John F. Jelke Company v. Emery (1927) This case centers on a quirky Wisconsin law that made it a crime to manufacture or sell margarine in the state. The Legislature had enacted the law in 1925 to aid the dairy industry. An unanimous Court found that the Legislature had no power to attempt to regulate competition to give one industry an advantage over another.^[16]

Wait v. Pierce (1926) This case marks an important step forward for women in Wisconsin. In a 4-3 ruling, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted women the right to sue their husbands. In so doing, the Court broadly interpreted a 1921 law which gave women the right to vote, finding that the law granted women a number of additional rights.^[17]

Borgnis and others v. The Falk Company (1911) In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously upheld a law creating workers’ compensation and strengthened the rights of employees by finding that the law covered even individuals employed in "non-hazardous" trades.^[18]

Nunnemacher v. State (1906) In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld a tax on inheritance, one of the key laws of the Progressives. In issuing this opinion, the Court departed from a course charted by many courts around the nation which had found a natural right to inherit and had determined that legislatures could not interfere with this right by levying a tax.^[19]

19th Century

The State ex rel. Attorney General v. Cunningham and The State ex rel. Lamb v. Cunningham (1892) These cases demonstrate the power struggle, which is designed into a democratic system, among the three branches of government. The Wisconsin Supreme Court outlawed gerrymandering; that is, drawing creative legislative districts to preserve partisan political advantage.^[20]

State ex rel. Weiss and others vs. District Board, etc. (1890) In this case, popularly known as the Edgerton Bible case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that Bible reading in public schools is unconstitutional. Until this point, the King James Bible had been recommended as a textbook by the state superintendent of schools.^[21]

Brown v. Phillips and others (1888) In this case, in a unanimous opinion, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to expand women’s suffrage. In doing so, the Court narrowly interpreted a state statute which gave women the right to vote only on school-related matters. In the opinion, the Court emphasized that the power to grant suffrage belonged to the Legislature.^[22]

Motion to admit Miss Lavinia Goodell to the Bar of this Court and Application of Miss Goodell (1875) & (1879) These cases stand as a testament to the obstacles women faced in the 19th century as they attempted to work in traditionally male professions. Lavinia Goodell was a Janesville attorney and the first woman to apply for admission to the bar of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (at that time, practice before the state’s high Court required admission to a separate bar). In the first case, her application was denied; in the second, following a legislative act that prohibited denial of bar admissions based on gender, she was admitted.^[23]

Attorney General v. Chicago & Northwestern Railroad Company (1874) This case, popularly referred to as Attorney General v. Railroad, marked the beginning in this state of the struggle between corporate interests and the rights of the individual citizen. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in this case decided that the state did, indeed, have the authority to regulate railroads. This curtailed the railroads’ ability to arbitrarily set rates for freight and passenger fares in each community. Up to this point, the railroads had been able to set very low or very high rates if they chose—which could make or break a community.^[24]

Whiting v. Sheboygan & Fond du Lac Railroad Company (1870) Whiting established the important principle that the government may not impose a tax on its citizens for a private purpose. In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Fond du Lac County could not levy a tax on county residents to raise funds for the completion of a railroad.^[25]

Gillespie v. Palmer and others (1866) The decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Gillespie extended the right to vote to black residents of the state. The question had been put on a referendum, which had passed, but election inspectors attempted to keep black people from voting by arguing that the vote had been misconstrued. A unanimous Court held that the vote was valid.^[26]

In re Kemp (1863) This Civil War-era case provides another example of the state Supreme Court taking on the federal government. In this case, the Court ruled that President Abraham Lincoln could not suspend the writ of habeas corpus for civilians when marshal law was not in effect. Military troops had seized Kemp and imprisoned him after he helped to stage a draft riot.^[27]

Chamberlain v. Milwaukee and Mississippi Railroad (1860) This case represents an early effort on the part of the courts to give rights to injured workers. In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that an employer can be held responsible when negligence on the part of one employee injures another employee.^[28]

Attorney General ex rel. Bashford v. Barstow (1856) The Wisconsin Supreme Court removed an incumbent governor from office after it was discovered that his victory was the result of fraud. This case helped to create the tradition of independence and honesty that has marked Wisconsin politics and law ever since. Further, the case established the independence of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the important principle that the Court has the power to interpret the state Constitution.^[29]

In Re: Booth (1854) What has come to be known as the Booth case is actually a series of cases from the Wisconsin Supreme Court and one from the U.S. Supreme Court. In the midst of the pre-Civil War states’ rights movement, the Wisconsin Supreme Court boldly defied federal judicial authority and nullified the federal fugitive slave law (which required northern states to return runaway slaves). The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the state Supreme Court which, in a final act of defiance, never filed the mandates.^[30]

Public funding

Increased funding proposed

Under a 2008 bill passed by the Democratically held Wisconsin Senate, Supreme Court candidates would qualify for $100,000 each in publicly financed campaign contributions (assuming they raised between $5,000 and $10,000 on their own), for Supreme Court primary races; primary contestants would be granted $300,000. Currently, Supreme Court candidates can get up to $97,000 in public campaign grants. Stipulations are made on private individuals, as well. Under the proposed legislation, individuals and committees would be allowed to contribute a maximum of $1,000 to a Supreme Court justice annually. Currently, individuals can donate up to $10,000 annually, and committees up to $8,625. Impetus for the measure comes on the heals of a highly contested and costly Supreme Court election in 2007 between now-justice Annette K. Ziegler and Linda Clifford. Combined, the two spent nearly $6 million; according to a February 2008 AP report, nearly half of that was from "outside groups."

Proponents for the measure suggest the bill would dissuade would-be and incumbent justices from being influenced by private-interest dollars when ruling on important court cases. In December 2007, the Supreme Court justices sent a letter to lawmakers and Governor Jim Doyle saying they support the legislation. Senator Pat Kreitlow (D-Chippewa Falls) is the bill's main author. The Senate passed the measure, 21-10, without much debate. It now goes to the Republican-held State Assembly, where Speaker Mike Huebsch (R-West Salem) does not favor using tax dollars to finance public campaigns.^[31]

Published study

The idea of public funding for court races goes back to at least 2000. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, a study sponsored by the non-partisan group Wisconsin Citizen Action found that nearly 75% of the high court's cases during the past 10 years involved at least one campaign contributor, although there was no connection found between donations and court decisions.^[32] Carolyn Castore of Wisconsin Citizen Action applauded the move towards public-funded elections, saying, "In an effort to clean up the way Supreme Court races are funded, the committee has taken a giant step towards ensuring the impartiality and independence of the Wisconsin Supreme Court."^[33]

Court functions

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has three primary functions: deciding cases, administering the operation of the judicial branch, and regulatory responsibilities.

Case decision

The primary function of the Supreme Court is to ensure independent, open, fair and efficient resolution of disputes in accordance with the federal and state constitutions and laws. Cases come to the Supreme Court via:

• A party who has lost a case in the Wisconsin Courts of Appeal may file a petition for review;
• Any party may ask the Supreme Court to bypass the Court of Appeals and take a case;
• The Court of Appeals may ask the Supreme Court to take a case by certification; or
• A party may begin a case of statewide significance in the Supreme Court (original actions).

When the Court agrees to decide a case, it receives briefs from all sides and schedules oral argument. The Court publishes its decision in virtually every case it agrees to decide.^[34]

Administrative

The Supreme Court also administers the entire Wisconsin Court System. The Court's administrative duties include the following:^[35]

• Budgeting
• Long-range planning
• Information technology
• Rules of pleading and practice
• Security and facilities management
• Juror use and management
• Court-connected alternative dispute resolution

Regulatory

The Court-established Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) oversees bar admissions and monitors lawyers' compliance with Wisconsin's continuing legal education requirements. The Court also sets Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys and has established the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), which investigates and prosecutes grievances involving attorney misconduct or medical incapacity.

Through the Office of Judicial Education, the Court administers the requirement that judges attend educational programs. The state Constitution also gives the Court authority to discipline judges according to procedures established by the Legislature.

The Court-adopted Code of Judicial Conduct governs judges' conduct. The Court appointed a Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee to give informal advice to judges and render formal advisory opinions on whether a contemplated action would be appropriate. The Court has also appointed a Commission on Judicial Elections and Ethics to propose rules concerning the political and campaign activities of judges and candidates for judicial office.^[36]

Court house

The Wisconsin Supreme Court typically sits in its main hearing room in the East Wing of the Wisconsin State Capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin. Since 1993, the court has also traveled, once or twice a year, to another part of the state to hear several cases as part of its "Justice on Wheels" program. The purpose of this program is to give the people of Wisconsin a better opportunity to understand the operations of the state supreme court and the court system.

External links

• Everyone's Business: Emerging Issues in the Wisconsin Supreme Court
• A Court Unbound? The Recent Jurisprudence of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Wisconsin Blue Book: 2005-2006 Supreme Court Biographies
• Wisconsin Supreme Court Official Site
• Supreme Court opinions: 1995-present
• Oral arguments: 1997-present
• Internal Operating Procedures of the Supreme Court
• Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal in Janesville case
• Court says Wisconsin towns can suspend new development
• Wis. Man Gets Life in Wife's Poisoning
• Wis. court suspends attorney for role in estate scheme
• Court upholds demotion of Milwaukee officer in beating case
• Court dismisses lawsuit against Wisconsin cranberry grower
• Wisconsin Government Accountability Board
• Wisconsin Supreme Court Annual Statistical Report for the 2007-2008 Term

References

Portions of this article have been taken from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Copyright Notice can be found here.

The Wisconsin Project on Judgepedia

Supreme Court Courts of Appeal Federal court of appeal

Federal eastern district for Wisconsin Federal western district for Wisconsin