2025 Term
Scorecards.
Seven justices evaluated across five constitutional fidelity metrics using a transparent 50/50 composite model.
Justice Scorecards.
Ann Walsh Bradley
Chief Justice (May–June 2025)
Rebecca Grassl Bradley
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice
Rebecca Frank Dallet
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice
Brian Hagedorn
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice
Jill J. Karofsky
Chief Justice (from July 2025)
Janet C. Protasiewicz
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice
Annette Kingsland Ziegler
Chief Justice (until April 2025)
How Each Justice Is Scored.
Every justice’s composite score combines two equal weights: rigorous evaluation of judicial reasoning, and alignment in the term’s most consequential decisions.
5-Metric Methodology
Adherence to Precedent, Separation of Powers and Constitutional Boundaries, Textualism and Originalism, Respect for the Judicial Role, and Protection of Individual Liberty—weighted across every opinion authored or joined.
The 5 metrics & their weights
- Adherence to Precedent25%
- Separation of Powers & Constitutional Boundaries25%
- Textualism & Originalism20%
- Respect for the Judicial Role15%
- Protection of Individual Liberty15%
Critical Cases Alignment
Each justice’s vote in the term’s ten highest-stakes decisions is measured against constitutional principles—ensuring real-world consequence carries proportionate weight.
The 10 critical cases & their issues
- Evers v. MarkleinLegislative Oversight
- WMC v. DNRAgency Authority
- Kaul v. LegislatureSeparation of Powers
- Kaul v. UrmanskiAbortion
- Legislature v. DPIGubernatorial Veto
- LeMieux v. EversGubernatorial Veto
- Brown v. WECElection Administration
- WEC v. LeMahieuElection Administration
- Catholic Charities v. LIRCReligious Liberty
- SEIU v. WERCCollective Bargaining
The ten decisions that defined the term.
These cases carry 50% of each justice's composite score, ensuring that performance in high-stakes decisions carries real weight.
| Case | Issue | Split | R.G.B. | Ziegler | Hagedorn | Prota. | Dallet | Karofsky | A.W.B. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 10/10 | 10/10 | 8/10 | 4/10 | 4/10 | 4/10 | 4/10 | ||
*Hagedorn concurred in part and dissented in part in Evers v. Marklein. ✓ = aligned with constitutional principles ✗ = not aligned