The Wisconsin Supreme Court will soon make final ruling on abortion. How did we get here?
The state Supreme Court will soon release a highly anticipated ruling about the legality of abortion in Wisconsin, a complicated question since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision sent the issue to the states.
Wisconsin reverted to an 1849 statute, but the case before the state Supreme Court asks whether that law specifically bans consensual abortions.
The 1849 law has been on hold since a lower court's ruling in December 2023. The state then returned to its pre-Dobbs abortion laws, under which abortion is banned 20 weeks after "probable fertilization."
"We're just waiting for a final answer on that," said Bryna Godar, a staff attorney with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School. "The current state of the law has been that abortions are legal, subject to other laws we have in the state."
Here's a look back at how the case got to the Supreme Court and why this might not be the end of the road for legal challenges over abortion in Wisconsin:
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 that made abortion legal nationwide.
In Wisconsin, there was immediate legal uncertainty about whether the 1849 law was enforceable. Planned Parenthood and other providers stopped abortion procedures.
Days after the Dobbs decision, Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul — both Democrats — filed a lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court challenging the 1849 law.
Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper heard arguments in the case in May 2023.
In a July order, Schlipper signaled she believed the law doesn't apply to consensual abortions but to feticide — a nonconsensual act in which somebody batters a woman, causing her to lose the pregnancy.
After that interpretation from Schlipper, Planned Parenthood clinics in Milwaukee and Madison resumed abortions more than a year after pausing them. A clinic in Sheboygan resumed medication abortions in late December 2023.
"No court had ruled on this, so it was understandable that providers weren't sure what the state of the law was," Godar said. "But once you have a court ruling on that at any level in the state, then providers have a concrete answer."
More: Abortions in Wisconsin halved immediately after Roe was overturned, new CDC report says
Schlipper made her official ruling in December, determining the decades-old law doesn't prohibit abortions.
While the 1849 law is not in effect, the ruling meant the state reverted to other abortion laws passed in 1985, 2011 and 2015.
That includes a ban after 20 weeks, a 24-hour waiting period and requiring abortion-inducing drugs to be given in-person by physicians.
Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski appealed Schlipper's ruling later that month. The case jumped past appeals courts and went directly to the Supreme Court.
The court heard arguments from attorneys for the parties involved in the lawsuit, which include three county district attorneys, physicians and the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services and Medical Examining Board.
The court had a liberal majority at the time of oral arguments, following the election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz in 2023, and kept it in the April 2025 election. Newly elected Justice Susan Crawford, who takes the bench Aug. 1, won't be one of the justices deciding the case.
It's been more than six months since the Supreme Court heard oral arguments. That timeline is on the longer side for the court, Godar said, but not abnormal.
"It's not unexpected, given the weight and importance of this issue," she said. "It also involves some complicated legal issues, statutory interpretation — it's not surprising that it's taking this long."
The court typically issues its opinions by the end of June, which marks the end of its term, but some have come out in July.
More: Brad Schimel accused the Wisconsin Supreme Court of slow-walking the 1849 abortion case. Is that happening?
For now, yes.
The court will settle whether the 1849 statute bans consensual abortions. The case is about that narrow question, rather than determining whether there's a broad constitutional right to abortion in the state.
That means the court's decision won't prevent Wisconsin lawmakers from seeking a ban on abortion in the future, Godar noted.
Some Republicans have floated banning abortion after 14 weeks and asking voters to weigh in via referendum, but Evers has said he would veto any effort that makes abortion less accessible.
More: What to know about referendums in Wisconsin, and why citizens can't petition for them
Absolutely.
There's a separate case, initiated by Planned Parenthood, asking the state Supreme Court to recognize a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, including abortion. It's not clear if the court will end up taking action on that case.
That case is premised around the 1849 law banning abortion. So, if the court decides that law doesn't in fact ban abortions, the claims in the separate case would essentially go away, Godar said.
"We could see future cases that argue there is a constitutional right to abortion in Wisconsin and challenge other laws that we have in the state related to abortion," she said. "But those would be a bit more nuanced than challenging an outright ban."
That means groups could file specific legal challenges over rules like insurance restrictions, waiting periods or ultrasound requirements.
"Even after this case, Wisconsin might continue to have uncertainty," Godar said.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin abortion law ahead of Supreme Court ruling: Where it stands
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's tariffs are headed for a constitutional showdown at the Supreme Court that could reshape presidential power for decades
The Trump administration is preparing for a Supreme Court battle that could reshape presidential power by deciding the extent of the executive branch's authority over tariffs, which was originally granted to Congress by the Constitution. The administration appealed after many of its recent tariffs were invalidated by a federal trade court, which argued the president's actions were too sweeping and cut into Congress' authority. President Donald Trump's struck-down tariffs are almost guaranteed to end up before the Supreme Court, experts say, and the outcome is a toss-up that could shape presidential power for years to come. The Supreme Court rarely opines on trade issues, said Lee Smith, shareholder and leader of the international trade and national security practice at law firm Baker Donelson. The last case it heard on the topic was decided in 2009—U.S. v. Eurodif S.A., which dealt with the 'anti-dumping' duties on low enriched uranium, he said. Yet, this week, the New York-based Court of International Trade set up a future Supreme Court battle royale when it invalidated many of Trump's tariffs. The tariffs in question, including those imposed on Mexico and China, were undergirded by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the President 'broad authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national emergency.' Smith said the administration's decision to use the IEEPA as justification for the struck-down tariffs was likely made to move things along faster than it could have using other provisions of U.S. trade law. But the Court of International Trade argued that the tariff action was so sweeping it took authority away from Congress, which was granted the power to levy tariffs by the Constitution. The Trump administration has appealed the court's decision, and has signaled that it will elevate the issue to the Supreme Court if it loses. Now, the Supreme Court will likely need to decide how far the president's power over tariffs goes—after years of past U.S. leaders expanding their power over tariffs, with the acquiescence of Congress. 'It's a constitutional question,' Smith told Fortune. 'The Trump administration is taking it up no matter what, if they lose. The other side has already won—the Court of International Trade. So, if they lose the Court of Appeals, they're going to want the Supreme Court to reinstate the earlier decision.' Trump fought several court battles over tariffs during his first administration, especially over his tariffs on China, which were justified with a different provision of U.S. trade law. While none reached the Supreme Court, he was largely successful, said Smith, and it's possible, although not guaranteed, Trump may succeed this time around because the court's conservative majority has shown 'a lot of deference to this president,' said Smith. Still, since Trump last defended tariffs in court during his first administration, several groundbreaking cases decided by the Supreme Court overturned precedents which could affect the administration's odds. Stavros Gadinis, a law professor at U.C. Berkeley, said two cases, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron Doctrine, signaled that the Supreme Court has been paying attention to expanding executive power. Broadly, the decisions in both of these cases imply that any president seeking to exercise powers under vague or ambiguous statutes is subject to more scrutiny and requires more evidence and support for their actions than before. 'When, initially, those rulings were issued, a Democratic administration was in the White House, and the Republicans were very happy about it,' Gadinis told Fortune. 'But now that the situation is reversed these rulings could suggest more checks on how a Republican administration interprets certain statutes.' Thanks to the overturning of the Chevron doctrine, the courts don't need to automatically defer to the administration's definition of ambiguous terms used by Trump to back his tariffs such as 'national security' or 'retaliation.' Instead these definitions will be decided by the court, which may or may not agree with the administration's definition, said Gadinis. It's not guaranteed the Trump administration will lose at the Supreme Court. Yet, during his first administration, Trump officials gathered evidence and followed set procedures—for example by opening an investigation into China on intellectual property, technology transfer, and innovation. The administration did not follow the same procedure for the recently struck down tariffs, said Gadinis. 'These kinds of principles—the procedural background was just not in place in this particular set of times. So, this seems broader than what (the courts) upheld back then, and therefore more likely to fall,' Gadinis told Fortune. This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's tariffs are headed for a constitutional showdown at the Supreme Court that could reshape presidential power for decades
The Trump administration is preparing for a Supreme Court battle that could reshape presidential power by deciding the extent of the executive branch's authority over tariffs, which was originally granted to Congress by the Constitution. The administration appealed after many of its recent tariffs were invalidated by a federal trade court, which argued the president's actions were too sweeping and cut into Congress' authority. President Donald Trump's struck-down tariffs are almost guaranteed to end up before the Supreme Court, experts say, and the outcome is a toss-up that could shape presidential power for years to come. The Supreme Court rarely opines on trade issues, said Lee Smith, shareholder and leader of the international trade and national security practice at law firm Baker Donelson. The last case it heard on the topic was decided in 2009—U.S. v. Eurodif S.A., which dealt with the 'anti-dumping' duties on low enriched uranium, he said. Yet, this week, the New York-based Court of International Trade set up a future Supreme Court battle royale when it invalidated many of Trump's tariffs. The tariffs in question, including those imposed on Mexico and China, were undergirded by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the President 'broad authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national emergency.' Smith said the administration's decision to use the IEEPA as justification for the struck-down tariffs was likely made to move things along faster than it could have using other provisions of U.S. trade law. But the Court of International Trade argued that the tariff action was so sweeping it took authority away from Congress, which was granted the power to levy tariffs by the Constitution. The Trump administration has appealed the court's decision, and has signaled that it will elevate the issue to the Supreme Court if it loses. Now, the Supreme Court will likely need to decide how far the president's power over tariffs goes—after years of past U.S. leaders expanding their power over tariffs, with the acquiescence of Congress. 'It's a constitutional question,' Smith told Fortune. 'The Trump administration is taking it up no matter what, if they lose. The other side has already won—the Court of International Trade. So, if they lose the Court of Appeals, they're going to want the Supreme Court to reinstate the earlier decision.' Trump fought several court battles over tariffs during his first administration, especially over his tariffs on China, which were justified with a different provision of U.S. trade law. While none reached the Supreme Court, he was largely successful, said Smith, and it's possible, although not guaranteed, Trump may succeed this time around because the court's conservative majority has shown 'a lot of deference to this president,' said Smith. Still, since Trump last defended tariffs in court during his first administration, several groundbreaking cases decided by the Supreme Court overturned precedents which could affect the administration's odds. Stavros Gadinis, a law professor at U.C. Berkeley, said two cases, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron Doctrine, signaled that the Supreme Court has been paying attention to expanding executive power. Broadly, the decisions in both of these cases imply that any president seeking to exercise powers under vague or ambiguous statutes is subject to more scrutiny and requires more evidence and support for their actions than before. 'When, initially, those rulings were issued, a Democratic administration was in the White House, and the Republicans were very happy about it,' Gadinis told Fortune. 'But now that the situation is reversed these rulings could suggest more checks on how a Republican administration interprets certain statutes.' Thanks to the overturning of the Chevron doctrine, the courts don't need to automatically defer to the administration's definition of ambiguous terms used by Trump to back his tariffs such as 'national security' or 'retaliation.' Instead these definitions will be decided by the court, which may or may not agree with the administration's definition, said Gadinis. It's not guaranteed the Trump administration will lose at the Supreme Court. Yet, during his first administration, Trump officials gathered evidence and followed set procedures—for example by opening an investigation into China on intellectual property, technology transfer, and innovation. The administration did not follow the same procedure for the recently struck down tariffs, said Gadinis. 'These kinds of principles—the procedural background was just not in place in this particular set of times. So, this seems broader than what (the courts) upheld back then, and therefore more likely to fall,' Gadinis told Fortune. This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Spokane refugee communities search for path forward after Supreme Court decision allows parole status to be stripped
May 30—It's not clear how many refugees in the Spokane area will now lose their legal status to be in the U.S. following a decision Friday by the U.S. Supreme Court to allow President Donald Trump to end parole for roughly 500,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans. The news is devastating for those who had been fighting for them locally. "This is just genocide. It's like sending somebody to death," said Rev. Luc Jasmin Jr., the founder of Jasmin Ministries, a multicultural church serving the Haitian and African community in Spokane. More than 500,000 refugees from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who passed a background check and had a sponsor in the United States had been allowed to enter the country and request parole under the Biden-era program. In March, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem issued a decision to end the parole of a half-million refugees from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela admitted to the U.S. under the special parole program in keeping with an executive order Trump issued shortly after his inauguration in January. On the campaign trail, Trump also explicitly and broadly derided many of these communities, including baseless claims that Haitian immigrants were eating pets in Ohio. On Friday, the Supreme Court stopped an injunction from a lower court that had temporarily barred the federal government from categorically ending the parole status of these refugees, allowing the White House to strip their legal status while legal challenges continue. "Today, the American people landed a legal victory to terminate parole for more than 530,000 illegal aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela (CHNV) who were released into the country by the Biden Administration," the Department of Homeland Security wrote on the social media platform X. "Ending the CHNV parole programs, as well as the paroles of those who exploited it, will be a necessary return to common-sense policies, a return to public safety, and a return to America First." Mark Finney, director of Spokane-based refugee aid organization Thrive International, called the federal government's labeling of these refugees as "illegal aliens" ironic, given that it was the Trump administration itself that was stripping them of their legal status. "Ostensibly, this is about improving our national security and legal systems, so why are they putting more emphasis on stripping legal status away from productive members of society who are working jobs and contributing and paying taxes, rather than fixing the system with millions of undocumented folks living in the shadows?" Finney said. "It is sad, ironic and frustrating that the current administration is so focused on stripping legal status away and creating a much larger undocumented community than we already have," he added. Katia Jasmin, Luc's sister and director of Creole Resources, a nonprofit dedicated to supporting the Haitian community in Spokane, estimated around 200 Haitians in the Spokane area now face losing their legal status and ability to work. "Some of them work for Amazon, and Amazon has already stopped them from working," Katia said. "They now cannot pay for their housing; they are scared, they are stressed. There's fear everywhere." She doesn't understand why her community is being targeted. "I really want to meet with the president, to ask him why he is targeting us," she added. "Why Haitians? People that know us in Spokane, we don't bother people, we work — I don't know why they targeted us. If we're doing something wrong, I wouldn't mind them deporting us, but we don't bother people." Luc estimates around 10% to 15% of his congregation have simply stopped attending since March in fear of being deported. "Haitians are not here because they want to," Luc said. "They are here because they're trying to escape from the situation back home that is dangerous." Christi Armstrong, director of the Spokane branch of refugee resettlement organization World Relief, called the Trump administration's categorical targeting of refugees from these communities "disturbing." "As a human being, I think of the people who have left everything, left all of their worldly goods, left jobs, oftentimes family and friends — what are they going back to?" Armstrong said. "How are they going to have a life in a place where they fled from because they feared for their lives?" Spokane Mayor Lisa Brown said her office has begun reaching out to affected communities in the city to try to better understand what it can do to "help them have a safe path forward." "It is undeniable that people in Spokane — we don't know how many — who came here legally under a humanitarian program, are now experiencing anxiety and needless suffering as a result of the administration's order, the Supreme Court ruling and the failure of Congress to pass sensible and human immigration policy," Brown said in a statement. It's not clear, however, what further steps can be taken. "We don't know who to turn to and what to do with it," Luc said. "We just pray."
