Justice Janet C. Protasiewicz was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on April 4, 2023 and took office on August 1, 2023. Prior to her election to the Supreme Court, Justice Protasiewicz served as a Circuit Court Judge in Milwaukee County. She was first elected in 2014 and re-elected in 2020. To read her full biography, click here.
Janet C. Protasiewicz is a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, where she has served since August 2023. Her election in April 2023 was one of the most-watched and most-expensive state judicial races in American history.
Before joining the Supreme Court, Protasiewicz served as a Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge, first elected in 2014 and re-elected in 2020. Earlier in her career, she worked for more than two decades as a Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney, handling criminal cases.
Protasiewicz's election to the Supreme Court in April 2023 shifted the partisan balance of the court for the first time in 15 years. Her ten-year term runs through 2033.
Composite combines the 5-metric methodology score (50%) with critical-cases alignment (50%) per the IRG Court Watch scoring framework. Read the full methodology →
Justice Protasiewicz's 2024–25 record divides into two methodological registers. In civil and administrative cases—including her authored majorities in Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Secord, McDaniel v. DOC, Oconomowoc v. Cota, and WMC v. DNR—she applies the Kalal framework with rigor, anchors holdings in plain meaning, and uses procedural restraint to avoid premature merits rulings. McDaniel in particular drew a strict line between class-certification posture and merits review. In high-profile structural cases—Brown v. WEC, Evers v. Marklein, Lemieux v. Evers, and Kaul v. Urmanski—she joined majorities that overruled recent precedent (in Brown, a precedent less than a year old) or relied on functional rather than textual reasoning. Her separation-of-powers votes this term favored executive authority and invalidated legislative oversight mechanisms.
“The WIAA is not an inferior tribunal subject to our superintending control. It is a private organization governed by contract. Our courts cannot review its decisions via a writ of certiorari.”
“In today’s decision, the court follows the law where it leads, but we arrive at a strange result.”
“When a class-certification court assesses commonality, it should not consider the viability of the class’s claim on the merits.”
“Our statutes should not hamstring employers who are victims that way. An employer should be allowed to take employment action when it is the victim of an offense and suspects an employee did it, even when it relies on information from law enforcement.”
“The District made a prudent decision when it handed its investigation to law enforcement. The District sought more information before making a decision that could upend its employees’ lives.”
“This case highlights how our statutory scheme breaks down when an employer is the victim of an offense and seeks law enforcement intervention. I urge the legislature to address this unjust situation.”
“Merits questions may be considered to the extent—but only to the extent—that they are relevant to determining whether the [rule’s] prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.”
“An evaluation of the probable outcome on the merits is not properly part of the certification decision.”
“There is a difference between identifying whether a common question exists and deciding its answer.”
“A court must walk a balance between evaluating evidence to determine whether a common question exists and predominates, without weighing that evidence to determine whether the plaintiff class will ultimately prevail on the merits.”