Your property rights, your children's schools, the integrity of your elections, and the limits on government power all depend on seven people most Wisconsinites cannot name. The Wisconsin Supreme Court decides cases that reshape the legal landscape more consequentially than most legislation—yet unlike legislators, these justices face almost no structured public accountability between elections.
The IRG Court Watch Judicial Scorecard changes that. Every justice is evaluated—not on partisan loyalty, but on fidelity to the constitutional principles that safeguard individual liberty and the rule of law.
How the Score Works
Each justice is scored across five categories: Adherence to Precedent (25%), Separation of Powers and Constitutional Boundaries (25%), Textualism and Originalism (20%), Respect for the Judicial Role (15%), and Protection of Individual Liberty (15%). The final composite score blends this five-category methodology score (50%) with a critical-cases score (50%) drawn from the ten most consequential decisions of the term, ensuring that performance in high-stakes cases carries real weight.
The 2025 term scores reflect the 50/50 Combined Model: 5-Metric Methodology Score (50%) + Critical Cases Score (50%). They cover the first full term under the court's new progressive majority—25 cases, 7 justices, 5 categories.
How They Voted: 10 Critical Cases
| Case | Category | Vote | A.W.B. | R.G.B. | Dallet | Hagedorn | Karofsky | Protasiewicz | Ziegler |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evers v. Marklein | Legislative Oversight | 5–2 | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| WMC v. DNR | Agency Authority | 5–2 | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Kaul v. Legislature | Separation of Powers | 7–0 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kaul v. Urmanski | Abortion | 4–3 | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Legislature v. DPI | Gubernatorial Veto | 7–0 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| LeMieux v. Evers | Gubernatorial Veto | 4–3 | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Brown v. WEC | Election Admin. | 4–3 | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| WEC v. LeMahieu | Election Admin. | 7–0 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Catholic Charities v. LIRC | Religious Liberty | 4–3 | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| SEIU v. WERC | Collective Bargaining | 7–0 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Alignment Total | 4/10 | 10/10 | 4/10 | 8/10 | 4/10 | 4/10 | 10/10 |
✓ = aligned with constitutional principles. ✗ = not aligned. Hagedorn concurred in part and dissented in part in Evers v. Marklein; he concurred separately in WMC v. DNR—both treated as not aligned with the dissenting position.
How We Score
Adherence to Precedent—25%
Measures whether the justice demonstrates consistent respect for established legal precedent and applies existing case law in a principled and predictable manner. A high score reflects fidelity to precedent even when the justice might disagree with a prior ruling; a low score reflects willingness to overturn precedent when the court’s composition changes rather than when the legal basis for the prior decision has been shown to be wrong.
Separation of Powers and Constitutional Boundaries—25%
Evaluates how the justice approaches disputes involving the allocation of authority between branches of government. A high score reflects opinions that respect constitutional limits on governmental power and decline to expand agency or executive authority beyond what the text and structure of the law permit. A low score reflects opinions that defer to whichever branch advances the preferred policy result.
Textualism and Originalism—20%
Examines whether the justice grounds statutory and constitutional interpretation in the text of the law and the original public meaning of constitutional provisions. A high score reflects consistent engagement with text, historical meaning, and the structure of the relevant provision. A low score reflects reliance on evolving social values, legislative purpose divorced from statutory text, or contemporary policy considerations as interpretive tools.
Respect for the Judicial Role—15%
Assesses whether the justice resolves cases narrowly, avoids unnecessary constitutional rulings, and declines to issue expansive opinions that extend beyond the dispute actually presented. A high score reflects opinions that fix the specific legal problem before the court without announcing broad new rules. A low score reflects opinions that reach beyond the case to reshape entire areas of law or impose sweeping remedial frameworks, acting more like a legislator than a judge.
Protection of Individual Liberty—15%
Evaluates how the justice addresses disputes involving constitutional rights and statutory protections affecting individual freedom. A high score reflects rigorous application of constitutional protections for speech, religion, property, and other enumerated rights against government overreach. A low score reflects treatment of enumerated rights as subordinate to regulatory convenience or as lesser in weight than unenumerated interests.