At a time when the Wisconsin Supreme Court has been described as polarized, dysfunctional, and politicized,^[1] some commentators have noted that fully 36% of decisions were unanimous in 2024-25—consistent with levels in previous terms and a larger share, they suggest, than might have been expected in a partisan atmosphere.  Indeed, given that more decisions last term were reached unanimously than by any of the other possible vote margins, such observations on unanimity could even prompt one to question whether “polarized,” “dysfunctional,” and “politicized” are les mots juste when characterizing the court. [Continue Reading…]

These tables are derived from information contained in 285 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that were turned up in a Nexis Uni search for decisions filed between September 1, 1921, and August 31, 1922.  The total of 285 decisions does not include various orders pertaining to petitions, motions, and disciplinary matters involving lawyers and judges.

Also omitted are three deadlocked (3-3) cases: Kroner v. Order of United Commercial Travelers; Hahn v. Eells; and Griffin v. Milwaukee E. R. & Light Co.

When two (or more) cases were, in effect, consolidated—one was simply said to be ruled by the decision in the other—the cases are counted as only one: Evangelical Lutheran St. Paul’s Congregation v. Hass and Evangelical Lutheran St. Paul’s Congregation v. Jaeger.

Eight justices appear in a number of the tables because Justice Robert Siebecker died in February 1922 and was replaced in April by Justice Charles Crownhart.  The sources do not make it possible to determine precisely when Justice Siebecker ceased to participate in cases before his death; nor can we tell exactly when Justice Crownhart began voting in decisions filed after his appointment at the beginning of April.  The decisions name the authors of majority opinions and separate opinions, as well as the justices who joined separate opinions, but they do not list the justices who merely joined majority opinions (by far the largest category of participation).  Thus, I sometimes had to guess from fragmentary internal evidence whether a decision was, say, 6-0 or 7-0, and this should be borne in mind when viewing some of the following tables.

The tables are available as a complete set and by individual topic in the subsets listed below.

Four-to-Three Decisions
Decisions Arranged by Vote Split
Frequency of Justices in the Majority
Distribution of Opinion Authorship
Frequency of Agreement Between Pairs of Justices

I’m grateful to a reader for bringing to my attention that I mistakenly attributed a dissent in State v. Joan L. Stetzer to Justice Protasiewicz that should have been credited to Justice Karofsky.  I have corrected the four affected tables in the “Wisconsin Supreme Court Statistics, 2024-25” post and also a phrase in the “Bloc cohesion” portion of the “Some More Impressions” post.

This season featured a thrilling conclusion, with the Writs overtaking the Affirmed in the final days of competition. 

At its awards banquet earlier this week, the league honored not only the Writs but also the leading scorers from each team: Pines Bach led all firms with 34 points, followed by Stafford Rosenbaum with 21, and Troutman Pepper with 15.  For the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office, Christopher Sobic, Christopher August, and Olivia Garman each contributed five points.

The following table provides totals for every individual law firm.[Continue Reading…]

These tables are derived from information contained in 22 Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions filed between September 1, 2024, and the end of the court’s term in the summer of 2025.  The total of 22 decisions omits orders pertaining to various motions, petitions, and disciplinary matters involving lawyers and judges. 

Also excluded are (1) a per curiam order denying Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s request to be removed as a candidate for President on the November ballot, (2) Scot Van Oudenhoven v. Wisconsin Department of Justice (dismissed as improvidently granted), and (3) Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Joel Urmanski (dismissed as moot because of the decision in Kaul v. Urmanski).

The tables are available as a complete set and by individual topic according to the subsets listed below.

Four-to-Three Decisions
Decisions Arranged by Vote Split
Frequency of Justices in the Majority
Distribution of Opinion Authorship
Frequency of Agreement Between Pairs of Justices
Average Time Between Oral Argument and Opinions Authored by Each Justice
Number of Oral Arguments Presented by Individual Firms and Agencies

One of last year’s posts could have been titled “The Rise of the Liberals,” as we examined evidence of the court’s new liberal sway shortly after years of conservative ascendancy.  Certain indications of this sea change were unprecedented, and the fact that the court’s composition has not altered suggests that similarly noteworthy features are likely to characterize our findings for 2024-25.[Continue Reading…]

With no more decisions expected this term, it’s time to begin our annual exploration of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s work.  Will the dramatic shifts of 2023-24 prove lasting?  And what surprises—if any—did 2024-25 have in store?[Continue Reading…]

This week yielded far more points than previous batches of decisions—and jolted the top of the standings in the process.  Back in January, the Affirmed seized first place and held that spot all the way through June.  But then, a stunning performance by the Writs (led by Pines Bach, as detailed below) vaulted them over the Affirmed with just days remaining in the season. 

State v. Carl Lee McAdory
The Gavels (of the State Public Defender’s Office), 5 points for a brief and oral argument.

Josh Kaul v. Joel Urmanski, as DA for Sheboygan County, WI
The Writs, 10 points from Pines Bach for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome; 1 point for an amicus brief from Habush, Habush & Rottier; and 1 point for an amicus brief from Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.
The Affirmed, 10 points from Stafford Rosenbaum for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome.
The Waivers, 1 point for an amicus brief from Boardman & Clark.

State v. Joan L. Stetzer
The Writs, 1 point for an amicus brief from Legal Action of Wisconsin.

Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Division of Community Corrections v. Brian Hayes
The Writs, 10 points from Pines Bach for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome.

As detailed below, three teams gained points from a trio of these week’s decisions, thereby tightening up the standings considerably.

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
The Writs (5 points for a brief and oral argument from the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty).
The Affirmed (3 points for a brief from the WMC Litigation Center and 1 point for an amicus brief from Stafford Rosenbaum).

Wisconsin State Legislature v. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
The Affirmed (1 point for an amicus brief from the WMC Litigation Center).

Service Employees International Union Healthcare Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission
The Waivers (10 points from Quarles & Brady for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome).
The Writs (5 points for a brief and oral argument from Pines Bach).

Several years ago, a pair of posts examined two important trends in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals: (1) the sharp decline in the total number of decisions issued, and (2) the decreasing percentage of those decisions that were published.  Both trends matter because they affect the volume of precedential authority available to the legal community and the number of cases eligible for supreme court review.  With six more years of data now in hand, this update takes another look at what has—and hasn’t—changed.[Continue Reading…]