Reports &
Publications.

A unanimous Court reversed the court of appeals and held the Wisconsin Consumer Act does not govern an ordinary month-to-month residential lease—reading a statute as written.

Applying SFFA v. Harvard, the Court struck down Wisconsin’s race-based Minority Undergraduate Retention Grant under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

A divided 4–3 Court held the Menominee Tribe immune from a covenant-enforcement suit—then reached further to announce a broad tribal-immunity rule that two dissents called unnecessary.

A unanimous Court reaffirmed the Legislature’s power to reform common-law liability, upholding Wisconsin’s COVID-era civil-immunity statute for health-care providers.

A 5–2 Court stretched the safe-place statute into strict liability for property owners, extending it to an independent contractor’s employees exposed to undisturbed asbestos.

A federal judge in Madison dismissed the DOJ’s suit to obtain Wisconsin’s statewide voter-registration list, holding it is not a “record” the government may demand under the Civil Rights Act of 1960.

A divided Court agreed to take up—directly—a challenge seeking to throw out the congressional map the court itself adopted in 2022, on the theory it is an unconstitutional “anti-competitive gerrymander.”

How judges decide what open-ended constitutional phrases mean—anchoring to text, history, and tradition versus a judge’s own values and feelings.

How the Court’s liberal majority has abandoned the judiciary’s traditional distance from party politics in favor of an aggressive ideological agenda.

Judge Hannah Dugan’s federal charges test the limits of judicial immunity—a doctrine that shields judicial acts but not conduct outside a judge’s lawful authority.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s prompt, unanimous suspension of Judge Dugan after her federal felony charges followed well-established judicial-discipline precedent.

Why the separation of powers—and a Court willing to enforce it—is often the last line of defense against overreach by Madison’s administrative agencies.

Act 10 has saved Wisconsin taxpayers billions and delivered annual property-tax relief; a ruling striking it down would put those savings at risk.

Act 10 gave local school boards new tools to manage budgets and keep quality teachers in the classroom—gains a decision unwinding it could reverse.

Wisconsin’s civil-justice reforms shed its old “tort hellhole” reputation; the Court’s direction will decide whether that predictability survives.

Wisconsin’s election rules live in statutes the courts interpret—putting Voter ID, absentee rules, and other integrity measures within the Court’s reach.

Abortion, parental rights, and religious liberty are increasingly resolved in court, making the Wisconsin Supreme Court pivotal for people of faith.

Control of the Court could determine whether gun measures like universal background checks and red-flag laws are upheld or struck as unconstitutional.

Repeated lawsuits target Wisconsin’s School Choice programs; the Court’s makeup could decide the future of options relied on by tens of thousands of families.