Latest news with #WisconsinSupremeCourt
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
What to know about Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley ahead of the 2026 election
MADISON - The field is set for next year's Wisconsin Supreme Court election with incumbent conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley facing off against challenger liberal state Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor in the spring 2026 election. Bradley announced her reelection bid just days after liberals secured control of the court until at least 2028 with the election of Susan Crawford, a Dane County Circuit Court judge. The court is expected to take up key issues including abortion, collective bargaining and potentially the state's congressional maps. While Wisconsin Supreme Court races are officially nonpartisan, justices on the court typically lean liberal or conservative. In recent years, the race has become increasingly polarized, with partisan groups continuing to back their party's preferred candidate. Liberal candidates have won four of the last five Supreme Court elections. In 2023, the court flipped to a liberal majority for the first time in 15 years with the election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz. Here's what to know about Bradley, including her legal system experience, positions on key issues, education and more. Bradley was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for a full 10-year term in 2016 after being appointed by former Republican Gov. Scott Walker in 2015. Bradley chairs the Supreme Court Legislative Committee as the chief justice's designee. Before joining the state's high court, Bradley was appointed to and served as a District I Court of Appeals judge in 2015, headquartered in Milwaukee, and was a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge from 2012 to 2015. She is the first Wisconsin Supreme Court justice to have served as an intermediate appellate court judge and a circuit court judge. Bradley also worked as a private practice attorney at several Milwaukee law firms from 1996 to 2012, specializing in commercial litigation and intellectual property law. She also served as a vice president of legal operations for global software company RedPrairie Corp. Bradley is considered a conservative judge and has served as president of the Milwaukee Federalist Society chapter and participated in the Thomas More Society and the Republican National Lawyers Association. Bradley is 53. Bradley is a Milwaukee native. Bradley received her bachelor's degree in business administration and business economics from Marquette University in 1993. She then attended the University of Wisconsin Law School, graduating in 1996. Bradley has yet to receive endorsements from fellow conservative judges on the Supreme Court, however, it is still very early in the race. When Bradley ran in 2016, she was endorsed by Milwaukee-area law enforcement and former state Supreme Court Justices Jon P. Wilcox and Michael Gableman. Bradley has strongly opposed abortion rights in the past but has not yet weighed in on a case involving abortion as a Supreme Court justice. In college, Bradley compared abortion to the Holocaust and slavery, equating abortion to "a time in history when Jews were treated as non-humans and tortured and murdered" and "a time in history when Blacks were treated as something less than human" while writing for the Marquette Tribune in 1992. During Bradley's 2016 race, both Bradley and her opponent, Court of Appeals Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg, shied away from sharing their views on the issue while campaigning, as abortion rights was likely to appear before the Supreme Court. In recent Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, abortion rights have remained a crucial flash point with both Protasiewicz and Crawford's campaigns using it as a rallying issue. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling soon on whether the state's 1849 law specifically bans abortions or whether more recent laws or court rulings override it. The court had a liberal majority at the time of oral arguments and typically issues its opinions by the end of June. While the court has agreed to hear another case brought by Planned Parenthood seeking to make abortion a constitutional right, the court has yet to schedule a date for oral arguments. The case will most likely be heard before the winner of the spring 2026 election takes their seat. Shortly after Democrats swept statewide races in 2018, the Republican-controlled Legislature passed "lame-duck" laws to scale back the powers of the incoming Democratic governor and attorney general. The "lame-duck" laws have been litigated for years. In 2019 and again in 2020, the Supreme Court's conservative majority sided with Republicans. In 2019, the court ruled lawmakers were allowed to bring themselves into session in December to trim Evers' and Attorney General Josh Kaul's power before they look office. "The Wisconsin Constitution mandates that the Legislature meet 'at such time as shall be provided by law.' The Legislature did so," Bradley wrote for the majority in 2019. In 2020, the court found that "in at least some cases" the state Legislature can give itself the power to approve or reject Department of Justice civil cases and settlements, upholding most of the "lame duck" laws but leaving the door open to future challenges. Now that the Supreme Court has a 4-3 liberal majority, Kaul has asked the justices to decide whether the Joint Finance Committee has the power to approve or reject DOJ civil cases and settlements. The Republican-controlled state Legislature passed a law in 2011 that requires voters to show their ID at the polls, a measure that was stalled for years by court rulings. In 2014, the Supreme Court's conservative majority issued a pair of decisions that upheld the law and tweaked it to ensure there are no fees to get a state-issued ID card. While running for her first term on the court, Bradley declined to say whether she agreed with those rulings. Bradley emphasized the importance of maintaining election integrity and has raised concerns about the election system. Bradley wrote for the majority that state law does not permit drop boxes anywhere other than election clerk offices in its 2022 ruling on ballot drop boxes. "WEC's staff may have been trying to make voting as easy as possible during the pandemic, but whatever their motivations, WEC must follow Wisconsin statutes. Good intentions never override the law," Bradley wrote. When that decision was ultimately overturned by the newly liberal-controlled court in 2024, Bradley authored the dissenting opinion, writing the liberal majority "again forsakes the rule of law in an attempt to advance its political agenda," citing the court's previous ruling tossing the state's electoral maps. Bradley has consistently sided with the Supreme Court's conservative bloc on key issues, including upholding Act 10, a 13-year-old law signed by Walker that banned most collective bargaining rights for public employees. In December, a Dane County judge struck down most of the law and in February, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied a petition to bypass the court of appeals and take up the case directly. The case now sits in the appeals court and if the ruling is appealed again, it would then go to the state Supreme Court. Currently, the judge placed his ruling on hold, meaning the law is in effect as it moves through the courts. Bradley will face off against Taylor on April 7, 2026. The winner's 10-year term would begin in August 2026. If Bradley retains her seat, the court's liberal majority will remain 4-3. Bradley's current term expires July 31, 2026. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: What to know about Rebecca Bradley before Wisconsin Supreme Court race
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
What to know about Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley ahead of the 2026 election
MADISON - The field is set for next year's Wisconsin Supreme Court election with incumbent conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley facing off against challenger liberal state Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor in the spring 2026 election. Bradley announced her reelection bid just days after liberals secured control of the court until at least 2028 with the election of Susan Crawford, a Dane County Circuit Court judge. The court is expected to take up key issues including abortion, collective bargaining and potentially the state's congressional maps. While Wisconsin Supreme Court races are officially nonpartisan, justices on the court typically lean liberal or conservative. In recent years, the race has become increasingly polarized, with partisan groups continuing to back their party's preferred candidate. Liberal candidates have won four of the last five Supreme Court elections. In 2023, the court flipped to a liberal majority for the first time in 15 years with the election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz. Here's what to know about Bradley, including her legal system experience, positions on key issues, education and more. Bradley was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for a full 10-year term in 2016 after being appointed by former Republican Gov. Scott Walker in 2015. Bradley chairs the Supreme Court Legislative Committee as the chief justice's designee. Before joining the state's high court, Bradley was appointed to and served as a District I Court of Appeals judge in 2015, headquartered in Milwaukee, and was a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge from 2012 to 2015. She is the first Wisconsin Supreme Court justice to have served as an intermediate appellate court judge and a circuit court judge. Bradley also worked as a private practice attorney at several Milwaukee law firms from 1996 to 2012, specializing in commercial litigation and intellectual property law. She also served as a vice president of legal operations for global software company RedPrairie Corp. Bradley is considered a conservative judge and has served as president of the Milwaukee Federalist Society chapter and participated in the Thomas More Society and the Republican National Lawyers Association. Bradley is 53. Bradley is a Milwaukee native. Bradley received her bachelor's degree in business administration and business economics from Marquette University in 1993. She then attended the University of Wisconsin Law School, graduating in 1996. Bradley has yet to receive endorsements from fellow conservative judges on the Supreme Court, however, it is still very early in the race. When Bradley ran in 2016, she was endorsed by Milwaukee-area law enforcement and former state Supreme Court Justices Jon P. Wilcox and Michael Gableman. Bradley has strongly opposed abortion rights in the past but has not yet weighed in on a case involving abortion as a Supreme Court justice. In college, Bradley compared abortion to the Holocaust and slavery, equating abortion to "a time in history when Jews were treated as non-humans and tortured and murdered" and "a time in history when Blacks were treated as something less than human" while writing for the Marquette Tribune in 1992. During Bradley's 2016 race, both Bradley and her opponent, Court of Appeals Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg, shied away from sharing their views on the issue while campaigning, as abortion rights was likely to appear before the Supreme Court. In recent Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, abortion rights have remained a crucial flash point with both Protasiewicz and Crawford's campaigns using it as a rallying issue. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling soon on whether the state's 1849 law specifically bans abortions or whether more recent laws or court rulings override it. The court had a liberal majority at the time of oral arguments and typically issues its opinions by the end of June. While the court has agreed to hear another case brought by Planned Parenthood seeking to make abortion a constitutional right, the court has yet to schedule a date for oral arguments. The case will most likely be heard before the winner of the spring 2026 election takes their seat. Shortly after Democrats swept statewide races in 2018, the Republican-controlled Legislature passed "lame-duck" laws to scale back the powers of the incoming Democratic governor and attorney general. The "lame-duck" laws have been litigated for years. In 2019 and again in 2020, the Supreme Court's conservative majority sided with Republicans. In 2019, the court ruled lawmakers were allowed to bring themselves into session in December to trim Evers' and Attorney General Josh Kaul's power before they look office. "The Wisconsin Constitution mandates that the Legislature meet 'at such time as shall be provided by law.' The Legislature did so," Bradley wrote for the majority in 2019. In 2020, the court found that "in at least some cases" the state Legislature can give itself the power to approve or reject Department of Justice civil cases and settlements, upholding most of the "lame duck" laws but leaving the door open to future challenges. Now that the Supreme Court has a 4-3 liberal majority, Kaul has asked the justices to decide whether the Joint Finance Committee has the power to approve or reject DOJ civil cases and settlements. The Republican-controlled state Legislature passed a law in 2011 that requires voters to show their ID at the polls, a measure that was stalled for years by court rulings. In 2014, the Supreme Court's conservative majority issued a pair of decisions that upheld the law and tweaked it to ensure there are no fees to get a state-issued ID card. While running for her first term on the court, Bradley declined to say whether she agreed with those rulings. Bradley emphasized the importance of maintaining election integrity and has raised concerns about the election system. Bradley wrote for the majority that state law does not permit drop boxes anywhere other than election clerk offices in its 2022 ruling on ballot drop boxes. "WEC's staff may have been trying to make voting as easy as possible during the pandemic, but whatever their motivations, WEC must follow Wisconsin statutes. Good intentions never override the law," Bradley wrote. When that decision was ultimately overturned by the newly liberal-controlled court in 2024, Bradley authored the dissenting opinion, writing the liberal majority "again forsakes the rule of law in an attempt to advance its political agenda," citing the court's previous ruling tossing the state's electoral maps. Bradley has consistently sided with the Supreme Court's conservative bloc on key issues, including upholding Act 10, a 13-year-old law signed by Walker that banned most collective bargaining rights for public employees. In December, a Dane County judge struck down most of the law and in February, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied a petition to bypass the court of appeals and take up the case directly. The case now sits in the appeals court and if the ruling is appealed again, it would then go to the state Supreme Court. Currently, the judge placed his ruling on hold, meaning the law is in effect as it moves through the courts. Bradley will face off against Taylor on April 7, 2026. The winner's 10-year term would begin in August 2026. If Bradley retains her seat, the court's liberal majority will remain 4-3. Bradley's current term expires July 31, 2026. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: What to know about Rebecca Bradley before Wisconsin Supreme Court race
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Who is Chris Taylor? Where Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate stands on abortion rights, voter ID
MADISON - The field is taking shape for next year's Wisconsin Supreme Court election with liberal state Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor launching her bid to unseat conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley in the spring 2026 election. While state Supreme Court races are officially nonpartisan, justices on the court typically lean liberal or conservative. In recent years, the race has become increasingly polarized, with partisan groups continuing to back their party's preferred candidate. Liberal candidates have won four of the last five Supreme Court elections. In 2023, the court flipped to a liberal majority for the first time in at least 15 years with the election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz. Justice-elect Susan Crawford's victory over conservative Waukesha County Circuit Judge Brad Schimel in the April 1 election cemented the court's 4-3 liberal majority through 2028, during which the court is considering issues including abortion and union rights. Here's what to know about Taylor, including her legal system experience, positions on key issues, education and more. Taylor has served as a judge on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals for District IV, headquartered in Madison, since 2023. Her term expires July 31, 2029, according to the court's website. Over the course of her 30-year legal career, Taylor said she has worked to make sure "the law is used to protect Wisconsinites, their rights and freedoms." Before Gov. Tony Evers appointed Taylor to the Dane County Circuit Court in 2020, she served in the state Legislature, where she was known as one of the most liberal members. Taylor also worked as a private practice attorney in Milwaukee and Madison from 1996 to 2002 before becoming a public policy director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. Taylor is 57. Taylor lives in Madison with her husband, James Feldman, and their two sons. She grew up in Los Angeles. Taylor received her bachelor's degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1990. She then attended the University of Wisconsin Law School, graduating in 1995. Taylor's campaign has officially been endorsed by the liberal majority, Justices Rebecca Dallet, Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz. Crawford also endorsed Taylor. 'Having served alongside Judge Taylor on the Circuit Court, I know she cares deeply about the people of Wisconsin and is dedicated to making sure that our justice system protects their fundamental rights," Crawford said in a statement on May 21. Taylor served as a public policy director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin before joining the state Assembly in 2011. She said whether she would recuse herself from cases involving the organization would depend on the case. "I would not categorically say because I worked for Planned Parenthood 15 years ago that I can't hear a case on reproductive health care," Taylor told the Journal Sentinel. "That would be like a judge who worked for a law firm 15 years ago who would say, 'Well I can never take a case from that law firm.'" In Wisconsin, abortion rights have remained a flash point in Wisconsin Supreme Court races with both Protasiewicz and Crawford's campaigns using it as a rallying issue. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling soon on whether the state's 1849 law specifically bans abortions or whether more recent laws or court rulings override it. While the court has agreed to hear another case brought by Planned Parenthood seeking to make abortion a constitutional right, the court has yet to schedule a date for oral arguments. The case will most likely be heard before the winner of the spring 2026 election takes their seat. As a lawmaker, Taylor weighed in on issues including the "lame-duck" laws that the Republican-controlled Legislature passed to scale back the powers of the incoming Democratic governor and attorney general following Republican losses in the 2018 election. Litigation over the legislation is before the court. As a judge, Taylor said, she is not working as an advocate, and as a justice, she would decide on a case-by-case basis whether to recuse herself from litigation on underlying legislation she had voted on as a lawmaker. During her time on the Appeals Court, Taylor said she has reviewed laws passed during her time in the state Legislature and hasn't run into issues being fair and impartial. During her time in the state Legislature, Taylor called on Republican leadership to release funding for a comprehensive voter ID informational campaign after voters were turned away from the polls in the spring 2016 election. The League of Women Voters joined Taylor in that effort. Under Wisconsin's voter ID law, the state was required to fund a public information campaign to educate voters on the new law and the identification needed to vote. Taylor, a lawmaker at the time, said the spring elections revealed the state failed to fulfill its "obligation to educate voters about this convoluted, nonsensical new law" as many Wisconsinites lacked the proper documentation to successfully vote. 'While we know suppressing our ability to vote is the true intention behind this Voter ID legislation,' Taylor said in a press release in 2016. 'As I tell my kids at home, if you're going to change the rules, you need to let everyone else know. The solution here is simple — the GOP just needs to follow the law that they wrote.' Taylor has been a vocal opponent of Act 10, a 13-year-old law signed by former Gov. Scott Walker that banned most collective bargaining rights for public employees. In December, a Dane County judge struck down most of the law and in February, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied a petition to bypass the court of appeals and take up the case directly. The case now sits in the appeals court and if the ruling is appealed again, it would then go to the state Supreme Court. Currently, the judge placed his ruling on hold, meaning the law is in effect as it moves through the courts. Taylor will face off against incumbent Bradley on April 7, 2026. A primary, if necessary, will be held on Feb. 17. The winner's 10-year term would begin in August 2026. If Taylor wins the seat, the court's liberal majority will grow to 5-2. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: What to know about Chris Taylor, Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate
CBS News
28-05-2025
- General
- CBS News
Wisconsin Supreme Court suspends judge who left court to arrest a hospitalized defendant
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended a Dane County judge for a week Tuesday for leaving court to try to arrest a hospitalized defendant herself and getting into a sarcastic exchange with another defendant seeking a trial delay. The court agreed with a judicial conduct review panel's suspension recommendation for Ellen Berz, finding that she deserved more than a reprimand because she behaved impulsively and showed a lack of restraint. The suspension will begin June 26, the court ordered. "We believe that the recommended seven-day suspension is of sufficient length to impress upon Judge Berz the necessity of patience, impartiality, and restraint in her work, and to demonstrate to the public the judiciary's dedication to promoting professionalism among its members," the justices wrote in the suspension order. Justice Jill Karofsky, herself a former Dane County judge, did not participate in the case. The suspension order noted that Berz has acknowledged the facts of the case and has accepted full responsibility. Andrew Rima, one of two attorneys for Berz listed in online court records, declined to comment. Her other attorney, Steven Caya, didn't immediately respond to an email. Berz is the second Wisconsin judge that the state Supreme Court has suspended in the last five weeks. The justices suspended Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan indefinitely on April 29 after federal prosecutors accused her of helping a man evade U.S. immigration agents by showing him out a back door in her courtroom. A federal grand jury has indicted Dugan on one count of obstruction and one count of concealing a person to prevent arrest. She has pleaded not guilty and is set to stand trial in July. The Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed a misconduct complaint against Berz, the Dane County judge, in October, accusing her of failing to promote public confidence in judicial impartiality, failing to treat people professionally and failing to perform her duties without bias. According to the complaint, Berz was presiding over an operating-while-intoxicated case in December 2021. The defendant didn't show up in court on the day the trial was set to begin. His attorney told Berz that the defendant had been admitted to a hospital. Berz had a staff member investigate and learned that he was in a Sun Prairie emergency room. The judge ordered her bailiff to go arrest him, but was told the bailiff couldn't leave the courthouse. She declared that she would retrieve the defendant herself, and if something happened to her, people would hear about it on the news, according to the complaint. She then left court and began driving to the emergency room with the defendant's attorney in the passenger seat, the complaint says. No prosecutor was present in the vehicle. She eventually turned around after the defense attorney warned her that traveling to the hospital was a bad idea because she was supposed to be the neutral decision-maker in the case, according to the complaint. She went back into court and issued a warrant for the defendant's arrest. The complaint also alleges she told a defendant in a child sexual assault case who had asked to delay his trial for a second time that he was playing games and should "go to the prison and talk to them about all the games you can play." When the defendant said her sarcasm was clear, she told him: "Good. I thought it would be. That's why I'm saying it to you that way, because I thought you would relate with that."
Associated Press
27-05-2025
- General
- Associated Press
Wisconsin Supreme Court suspends judge who left court to arrest a hospitalized defendant
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended a Dane County judge for a week Tuesday for leaving court to try to arrest a hospitalized defendant herself and getting into a sarcastic exchange with another defendant seeking a trial delay. The court agreed with a judicial conduct review panel's suspension recommendation for Ellen Berz, finding that she deserved more than a reprimand because she behaved impulsively and showed a lack of restraint. The suspension will begin June 26, the court ordered. 'We believe that the recommended seven-day suspension is of sufficient length to impress upon Judge Berz the necessity of patience, impartiality, and restraint in her work, and to demonstrate to the public the judiciary's dedication to promoting professionalism among its members,' the justices wrote in the suspension order. Justice Jill Karofsky, herself a former Dane County judge, did not participate in the case. The suspension order noted that Berz has acknowledged the facts of the case and has accepted full responsibility. Andrew Rima, one of two attorneys for Berz listed in online court records, declined to comment. Her other attorney, Steven Caya, didn't immediately respond to an email. Berz is the second Wisconsin judge that the state Supreme Court has suspended in the last five weeks. The justices suspended Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan indefinitely on April 29 after federal prosecutors accused her of helping a man evade U.S. immigration agents by showing him out a back door in her courtroom. A federal grand jury has indicted Dugan on one count of obstruction and one count of concealing a person to prevent arrest. She has pleaded not guilty and is set to stand trial in July. The Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed a misconduct complaint against Berz, the Dane County judge, in October accusing her of failing to promote public confidence in judicial impartiality, failing to treat people unprofessionally, and failing to performing her duties without bias. According to the complaint, Berz was presiding over an operating-while-intoxicated case in December 2021. The defendant didn't show up in court on the day the trial was set to begin. His attorney told Berz that the defendant had been admitted to a hospital. Berz had a staff member investigate and learned that he was in a Sun Prairie emergency room. The judge ordered her bailiff to go arrest him, but was told the bailiff couldn't leave the courthouse. She declared that she would retrieve the defendant herself, and if something happened to her, people would hear about it on the news, according to the complaint. She then left court and began driving to the emergency room with the defendant's attorney in the passenger seat, the complaint says. No prosecutor was present in the vehicle. She eventually turned around after the defense attorney warned her that traveling to the hospital was a bad idea because she was supposed to be the neutral decision-maker in the case, according to the complaint. She went back into court and issued a warrant for the defendant's arrest. The complaint also alleges she told a defendant in a child sexual assault case who had asked to delay his trial for a second time that he was playing games and should 'go to the prison and talk to them about all the games you can play.' When the defendant said her sarcasm was clear, she told him: 'Good. I thought it would be. That's why I'm saying it to you that way, because I thought you would relate with that.'
