The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 2025–26 term unfolded largely out of the spotlight. The court handled complex questions of criminal procedure, involuntary commitments, and immunities from suit, among others. None of these cases drew the same politicized attention as the redistricting and abortion issues that have headlined recent terms.

The court issued 19 opinions in the 2025–26 term,^[1] lower on average compared with other recent terms^[2] and prior decades.^[3] But signs indicate the court is ramping up. Recently, the court has been accepting new cases at a higher rate, taking 28 cases for the upcoming term as of the end of July.^[4] With those cases, its grant rate for petitions for review hit 6.7% for the term, marking a significant increase from the previous term’s 4.2% and from a low of around 2% in the 2023 — 24 term. From 2012 to 2022, the average grant rate was 7.7%.

In the 2025–26 term, the court split 4–3 three times, or in 16% of cases, and only one of those was on ideological lines. (In another case, the court was unanimous in the result but split 4–3 on the important constitutional issues.^[5]) Under either count, this is the lowest percentage of 4–3 splits in years and far below the high of 54% in the 2021–22 term.

This piece summarizes themes and major rulings from the 2025–26 term and previews the 2026–27 term, which will likely be headlined by a case revisiting the court’s approach to statutory interpretation and by two redistricting cases challenging the constitutionality of the state’s congressional maps.

Civil Commitment and Criminal Proceedings

The rights of people facing civil commitment or criminal proceedings dominated the court’s docket in 2025–26, with nearly half the cases raising constitutional or statutory issues relating to involuntary medication and commitment, electronic searches, or interrogations.

The court took up six involuntary medication or commitment cases, dealing with several narrow questions of which procedures are required under state statutes and the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause.^[6]

Two other cases dealt with electronic searches uncovering child sexual abuse material.^[7] In both cases, the court ruled that because private companies (Google and Snapchat) had conducted the search in the first instance and the subsequent law enforcement searches had not gone further, the private-search doctrine applied.^[8] Under that doctrine, “the government may repeat a search done by a private actor without implicating the Fourth Amendment, so long as the government does not exceed the scope of the private actor’s search.”^[9]

A final case in the criminal procedure category, State v. K.R.C., centered on whether a 12-year-old student should have received Miranda warnings before police interrogated him at school about inappropriately touching a classmate.^[10] In an opinion written by Justice Janet Protasiewicz, the court held 4–3 that the student was in custody for purposes of Miranda while being questioned in the school resource officer’s office and a school-suspension cubicle because “a reasonable 12-year-old” would not have felt free to leave.^[11] However, the majority further held that admitting the improperly obtained statements at trial was harmless error, so it affirmed the lower courts’ delinquency decision.^[12]

A concurrence, written by Justice Brian Hagedorn and joined by Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley and Justice Annette Ziegler, agreed to affirm but on different grounds. In their view, the student “was not entitled to Miranda warnings prior to questioning because this encounter was not a ‘custodial’ interrogation.”^[13]

A notable aspect of several cases was the availability of a parallel state constitutional claim — and the parties’ failure to develop those arguments.

In a number of opinions, justices included footnotes pointing out that the Wisconsin Constitution has due process and criminal procedure provisions analogous to those in the U.S. Constitution.^[14] But even the parties who mentioned the state constitutional analogue failed to develop separate arguments under those provisions.^[15] The court thus did not decide whether the provisions might offer broader protections than their federal constitutional counterparts. Justice Hagedorn and Justice Rebecca Dallet recently highlighted this gap in a piece for Wisconsin Lawyer, calling on attorneys to pay attention to the state constitution and give such claims “independent analysis grounded in the text’s meaning and the context of related provisions.”^[16]

In the 2025–26 term, the court split 4–3 three times, or in 16% of cases, and only one of those was on ideological lines.

Immunity from Suit

Another issue surfacing in two very different contexts was immunity from suit. One case dealt with tribal sovereign immunity, while the other centered on a statute granting healthcare providers immunity from certain suits in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tribal Immunity. In Legend Lake Property Owners Association v. Keshena, a group of private landowners sued the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin and one of its members, Guy Keshena, seeking to block the transfer of land back to the Tribe’s territory.

The dispute centered on land that had been part of the treaty-established Menominee Reservation and was sold to people who were not tribal members after the federal government terminated the Tribe’s status in 1954. These sales included the land that became the Legend Lake development. In 1973, the federal government reversed course via the Menominee Restoration Act, again recognizing the Tribe and establishing a process for recovering sold reservation lands. The Act directed the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to accept land transferred to him by a Menominee owner, to be held in trust for the Tribe as part of its reservation. In 1998, the Tribe designated Keshena to acquire property to place in that trust.^[17]

In response, the Legend Lake Property Owners Association added restrictive covenants to its land parcels aimed at barring their transfer back to the Tribe. In 2017, Keshena acquired more than 30 lots in the development and, in 2018, sought to transfer them to the U.S. to hold in trust for the Tribe. The association filed suit, arguing that the transfers violated the restrictive covenants.^[18]

While the state-court case was pending, Keshena and the Tribe prevailed in parallel federal litigation, which concluded that the Menominee Restoration Act preempted the covenants. The lots were thus conveyed to the U.S. in 2023.^[19] But the association argued in the state case that some issues remained unresolved.

In an opinion written by Justice Susan Crawford, the supreme court ended the state litigation as well, holding 4–3 that tribal sovereign immunity barred the suit. The court concluded that “the Tribe’s sovereign immunity was neither abrogated by Congress nor waived by the Tribe” and that there are no general exceptions to tribal sovereign immunity for real property in the state.^[20] The court also concluded that Keshena was no longer a proper defendant because the U.S. now holds title to the land, and in any event, “the Tribe is the real party in interest,” so sovereign immunity would apply.^[21]

Justice Bradley dissented, joined by Justice Ziegler, arguing that the majority adopted an overly broad conception of tribal immunity by not recognizing a common-law exception for immovable property that falls outside the Tribe’s territory.^[22]

Justice Hagedorn, joined by Justice Bradley and Justice Ziegler, wrote a separate dissent, arguing that the court should not have decided “these weighty and consequential legal questions” without the United States being a party to the case, given that it became the legal property owner in 2023.^[23]

Immunity for Healthcare Providers. The court also addressed immunity from suit in Wren v. Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital Milwaukee, Inc., albeit in a very different context: medical malpractice. The court unanimously concluded that a statute that granted broad immunity to healthcare professionals early in the pandemic did not violate the state constitutional right to a jury trial.^[24]

Article I, section 5, of the Wisconsin Constitution provides that “[t]he right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and shall extend to all cases at law … .” The plaintiffs-appellants argued that the Wisconsin Legislature’s extension of immunity to healthcare providers violated this provision.

In an opinion by Chief Justice Jill Karofsky, the court disagreed, pointing to a different constitutional provision that gives the legislature the power to “alter[] or suspend[]” the common law. The court held that “Article XIV, Section 13 permits the legislature to enact § 895.4801, which suspends [the plaintiffs-appellants’] asserted common law causes of action.” And once that enactment suspends the cause of action, the court concluded, “the right to a jury trial does not attach.”^[25]

Other Major Cases

In other prominent cases, the court reached issues involving the scope of the attorney general’s power over settlement funds, access to voter records, and the viability of a race-conscious grant program in the wake of changes to federal equal protection jurisprudence.

Separation of Powers. In Wisconsin State Legislature v. Kaul, the court ruled that the attorney general has discretion over how to allocate certain settlement funds, though the case left open a question that could spur further litigation. The case is part of a series of challenges involving the 2018 lame-duck legislative session in which Republicans sought to restrict incoming Democratic officials’ powers.^[26]

One of the lame-duck laws, codified at Wis. Stat. section 165.10, requires the attorney general to “deposit all settlement funds into the general fund.” When Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul took office, he continued the prior practice of depositing settlement funds into the state’s general fund — in line with that statute — and crediting those funds to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) program appropriation, which allows the department to use the funds on its own programs and activities. The legislature challenged this practice, arguing that Kaul instead had to credit the funds to the “general purpose revenues” of the general fund, which are under the legislature’s control.^[27]

In a four-justice majority opinion written by Justice Dallet, the court disagreed, centering on the distinction between “depositing,” whereby funds are placed into the state’s general fund, and “crediting,” whereby funds are designated to specific programs within the general fund. The court concluded that the 2018 statute merely requires settlement funds be deposited into “the general fund” and “says nothing whatsoever about where that money may or must be credited after it is deposited.” Therefore, the court concluded, Kaul was complying with the statute.^[28]

The court sidestepped another important issue, however: whether other statutes, including Wis. Stat. sections 20.906(1) and 20.455(3)(g), provide a separate limit on the attorney general’s allocation of these funds. Noting that “the court is too divided to reach a majority mandate on that issue,” the majority dismissed it as improvidently granted.^[29]

In a partial concurrence, Justice Hagedorn agreed with the majority’s analysis of Wis. Stat. section 165.10 but dissented from and criticized the majority’s decision not to reach the second issue in the case. He wrote that a majority of the court agrees on the statutory interpretation — the “disagreement is simply on how to style the mandate.” Because the circuit court and court of appeals had also left this issue unresolved, it may be subject to further litigation.^[30]

In dissent, Justice Bradley, joined by Justice Ziegler, also agreed with the majority’s interpretation of Wis. Stat. section 165.10 but concluded that Wis. Stat. sections 20.906(1) and 20.455(3)(g) require settlement funds to be credited to the “general purposes revenue” portion of the general fund instead of the DOJ’s program appropriation. Justice Bradley left her dissent in the form of her “previously drafted opinion” on “what the majority opinion should have been.”^[31]

Public Access to Notice of Voting Eligibility Forms. In Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Secord, the court ruled 5–2 that Wisconsin public records laws do not entitle plaintiffs to “Notice of Voting Eligibility” (NVE) forms, which “communicate to election officials or agencies that a person subject to guardianship proceedings has been found incompetent to vote.”^[32] The case stemmed from efforts by Wisconsin Voter Alliance (WVA) to obtain access to these documents to try to bolster its claims of voter fraud.^[33] In an opinion by Justice Protasiewicz, the court concluded that NVE forms are shielded under state statutes providing that “court records pertinent to the finding of incompetency are closed,” with limited exceptions.^[34]

Justice Ziegler, joined by Justice Bradley, dissented, arguing for a narrower definition of what is “pertinent to the finding of incompetency” that would allow the public to access records involving the right-to-vote determinations that are made after somebody is adjudicated to be incompetent.^[35]

The court’s decision resolved a case that had already drawn an opinion from the court last term. In the 2025 decision, the supreme court admonished District II of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals for failing to follow a prior, published District IV ruling holding that the NVE forms were exempt from public disclosure.^[36] The supreme court had remanded the case with directions to follow the binding precedent, setting it up to return to the supreme court on the merits this term.

Race-Conscious Educational Grants & Equal Protection. Finally, in a case applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s revised approach to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, the court concluded 7–0 that a state program providing higher education grants to Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Southeast Asian students based on financial need could not stand.^[37]

In 2023, amid the state-level litigation about the program, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA), which gutted affirmative action and instead advanced a “colorblind” approach to equal protection.^[38] Applying that ruling, Justice Ziegler wrote in a majority opinion that the state grant program is subject to strict scrutiny because it “treats members of specific race-, national origin-, ancestry-, or alienage-based groups differently.” The court then concluded that the board administering the program had failed to meet strict scrutiny under the high bar set in SFFA.^[39]

Chief Justice Karofsky, Justice Dallet, and Justice Crawford joined only the portion of the majority opinion concluding that the plaintiff taxpayers had standing, but all three concurred in the result. In a concurrence joined by Justice Crawford and Chief Justice Karofsky, Justice Dallet suggested that addressing disproportionate attrition rates — an interest advanced by the state board — could constitute a sufficiently compelling interest for a similar program had there been “greater factual support” in the record.^[40]

In another concurrence joined by Justice Crawford, Chief Justice Karofsky also criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, arguing that a grant program centered on remedying inequality in the state’s educational opportunities “could be constitutional under an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that honors its purpose — to combat oppression.”^[41]

The Term to Come: 2026–27

A new justice, Chris Taylor, is on the bench for the 2026–27 term after defeating another court of appeals judge, Maria Lazar, in April 2026.^[42] The election was far more subdued than the 2025 high-court race, which saw more than $100 million in spending and drew highly politicized national attention.^[43] Judge Taylor filled the seat of Justice Bradley, who stepped down after a decade on the court.

The upcoming term will also bring several high-profile cases. The court has already accepted more than two dozen cases for review as of the end of July, ranging from insurance law to administrative agency procedures. The most closely watched will likely involve redistricting and the court’s approach to statutory interpretation.

Two separate redistricting challenges to the state’s U.S. House map are coming to the court on direct appeal from three-judge trial panels.^[44] Both argue that the current map violates the Wisconsin Constitution, one asserting a partisan gerrymandering claim^[45] and the other arguing that the current maps constitute an anticompetitive gerrymander.^[46]

In another highly anticipated case, the court will address whether to revisit its lead statutory interpretation case, State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County.^[47] Some justices have already debated Kalal’s statutory interpretation framework in concurrences.^[48] The court now has the opportunity to address the question head-on.^[49]

The court likely will continue to see new petitions on major issues. Disputes around the 2026 election may take an expedited path to the court. At press time, several major cases on public sector bargaining^[50] and election administration^[51] already have pending petitions for review or are awaiting decisions in the court of appeals. The court might also return to a previously accepted case challenging whether state law permits local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration detainers. That case has been on hold while the respondents seek removal in federal court.^[52]

As with the past two terms, the 2026–27 term will take place against the backdrop of a state supreme court election. Justice Ziegler’s seat is up for election in 2027 at the end of her second term, and she plans to retire.^[53] That sets up another open race, continuing the steady pace of turnover the court has seen across all six elections since 2018.

Wisconsin Supreme Court, Holdings and Votes: 2025–26 Term

Most of the holdings displayed in the table were summarized by Marquette University Law School Professor Daniel D. Blinka and Professor Thomas J. Hammer and were originally published in Wisconsin Lawyer’s Supreme Court Digest.

Table compiled by Jay D. Jerde, Mitchell Hamline 2006, legal writer for the State Bar of Wisconsin. jjerde@wisbar.org

Endnotes

[1] This count does not include two orders in the redistricting cases, discussed further below, in which the court sent the two cases to three-judge circuit court panels in line with a statute laying out a specific procedure for redistricting cases. See Order, Wisconsin Bus. Leaders for Democracy v. Wisconsin Elections Comm’n, No. 2025XX1330 (Wis. Nov. 25, 2025); Order, Bothfeld v. Wisconsin Elections Comm’n, No. 2025XX1438 (Wis. Nov. 25, 2025). ^

[2] Bryna Godar, Wisconsin Supreme Court: 2023–24 Term Review and 2024–25 Preview, Wis. Lawyer (Sept. 6, 2024), https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/Article.aspx?ArticleID=30624&source=carousel. ^

[3] Alan Ball, The Supreme Court’s 2024–25 Term: Some Initial Impressions (July 15, 2025), https://scowstats.com/2025/07/15/the-supreme-courts-2024-25-term-some-initial-impressions/; Alan Ball, The Supreme Court’s 2023–24 Term: Some Initial Impressions (July 8, 2024), https://scowstats.com/2024/07/08/the-supreme-courts-2023-24-term-some-initial-impressions/. ^

[4] Wisconsin Supreme Court Monthly Statistical Report July 2026, https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1161642. ^

[5] See State v. K.R.C., 2026 WI 10, 419 Wis. 2d 587, 33 N.W.3d 93. ^

[6] See Sheboygan Cnty. v. N.A.L. (In re Mental Commitment of N.A.L.), 2026 WI 16, 420 Wis. 2d 221, 34 N.W.3d 765; Racine Cnty. v. R.P.L., 2026 WI 26, 421 Wis. 2d 224, 37 N.W.3d 545; Waukesha Cnty. v. R.D.T., 2026 WI 24, 421 Wis. 2d 133, 36 N.W.3d 944; State v. N.K.B., 2026 WI 22, 421 Wis. 2d 58, 36 N.W.3d 881; Outagamie Cnty. v. M.J.B. (In re Mental Commitment of M.J.B.), 2026 WI 23, 421 Wis. 2d 115, 36 N.W.3d 908; State v. J. D. B., 2026 WI 5, 419 Wis. 2d 383, 31 N.W.3d 314. For a summary of these decisions, see Wisconsin Supreme Court, Holdings & Votes — 2025–26 Term, on pages 14–16 and the Supreme Court Digest, on pages 55–61 of this issue. ^

[7] State v. Rauch Sharak, 2026 WI 4, 419 Wis. 2d 363, 31 N.W.3d 305; State v. Gasper, 2026 WI 3, 419 Wis. 2d 12, 30 N.W.3d 367. ^

[8] Rauch Sharak, 2026 WI 4, ¶3, 419 Wis. 2d 363; Gasper, 2026 WI 3, ¶6, 419 Wis. 2d 12. ^

[9] Rauch Sharak, 2026 WI 4, ¶ 6, 419 Wis. 2d 363. ^

[10] K.R.C., 2026 WI 10, ¶ 4, 419 Wis. 2d 587. ^

[11] Id. ¶¶ 3, 32, 33. ^

[12] Id. ¶¶ 38–42. ^

[13] Id. ¶ 46 (Hagedorn, J., concurring). ^

[14] Id. ¶ 15 n.5 (“Kevin mentions the analogous provision of the Wisconsin Constitution — Wis. Const. Art. I, § 8(1) — but does not develop any independent argument under that provision. Thus, we treat this as a federal constitutional claim.”); Rauch Sharak, 2026 WI 4, ¶ 11 n.2, 419 Wis. 2d 363 (“Rauch Sharak mentions the analogous provision of the Wisconsin Constitution — Wis. Const. Art. I, § 11 — but does not develop any independent argument under that provision. Thus, we treat this as a federal Fourth Amendment claim.”); Gasper, 2026 WI 3, ¶ 86 n.8, 419 Wis. 2d 12 (Dallet, J., concurring) (“We could, of course, impose additional requirements on the application of the good-faith exception under the Wisconsin Constitution. Gasper did not make an argument under the Wisconsin Constitution for limiting the good-faith exception in this situation, however, and I therefore apply only the standards applicable under the United States Constitution.”); id. at ¶ 127 n.4 (Crawford, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“I note that Gasper does not make any argument here urging this court to limit the scope of the good-faith exception under Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution.”). ^

[15] See sources cited in preceding note. ^

[16] Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet & Justice Brian K. Hagedorn, Top 10 Reasons You Should Pay Attention to the Wisconsin Constitution, Wis. Lawyer (June 5, 2026), https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/Article.aspx?ArticleID=31638. ^

[17] Legend Lake Property Owners Ass’n v. Keshena, 2026 WI 21, ¶¶ 4-7, 421 Wis. 2d 1, 36 N.W.3d 641. The opinion includes a more detailed discussion of these events, as does a law review article cited in the opinion: Joseph F. Preloznik & Steven Felsenthal, The Menominee Struggle to Maintain Their Tribal Assets and Protect Their Treaty Rights following Termination, 51 N.D. L. Rev. 53, 64–68 (1974). ^

[18] Id. ¶¶ 7-8. ^

[19] Id. ¶ 10. ^

[20] Id. ¶¶ 36, 50. ^

[21] Id. ¶¶ 52-53. ^

[22] Id. ¶ 70. ^

[23] Id. ¶ 72. ^

[24] Wren v. Columbia St. Mary’s Hosp. Milwaukee, Inc., 2026 WI 11, ¶ 3, 419 Wis. 2d 736, 33 N.W.3d 487. ^

[25] Wren, 2026 WI 11, ¶ 15 (quoting Wis. Const. art. XIV, sec. 13), ¶¶ 16-17. ^

[26] Anya Van Wagtendonk, Wisconsin Supreme Court Sides with Josh Kaul in Latest Lame Duck Decision, WPR (July 10, 2026, 15:06 CT), https://www.wpr.org/news/kaul-legislature-lame-duck-supreme-court-settlement-money-budget. ^

[27] Wisconsin State Legislature v. Kaul, 2026 WI 28, ¶¶ 7, 10, 421 Wis. 2d 324, 37 N.W.3d 868. ^

[28] Id. ¶ 17. ^

[29] Id. ¶ 21. ^

[30] Id. ¶ 25 (Hagedorn, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). ^

[31] Id. ¶¶ 29, 31 (Bradley, J., dissenting). ^

[32] Wisconsin Volter All. v. Secord, 2026 WI 27, ¶ 1, 421 Wis. 2d 284, 37 N.W.3d 849. ^

[33] See Wisconsin Voter All., https://wisconsinvoteralliance.com/ (discussing the purpose of the case) (last visited Aug. 9, 2026). ^

[34] Wisconsin Voter All., 2026 WI 27, ¶ 2, 421 Wis. 2d 284 (quoting Wis. Stat. § 54.75 (2021 — 22)). ^

[35] Id. ¶¶ 46–49 (Ziegler, J., dissenting). ^

[36] Wisconsin Voter All. v. Secord, 2025 WI 2, ¶ 3, 414 Wis. 2d 348, 15 N.W.3d 872 (citing Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997)). ^

[37] Rabiebna v. Higher Educ. Aids Bd., 2026 WI 20, ¶¶ 5–6, 420 Wis. 2d 562, 36 N.W.3d 611. ^

[38] 600 U.S. 181 (2023). ^

[39] Rabiebna, 2026 WI 20, ¶¶ 36, 51–52, 420 Wis. 2d 562. ^

[40] Id. ¶ 101 (Dallet, J., concurring). ^

[41] Id. ¶ 70 (Karofsky, C.J., concurring). ^

[42] Anya Van Wagtendonk, Chris Taylor Wins Wisconsin Supreme Court Race, Growing Liberal Majority, WPR (Apr. 7, 2026, 8:37 CT), www.wpr.org/news/judge-chris-taylor-wins-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-2026; Anya Van Wagtendonk, ^

[43] Susan Crawford Wins Wisconsin Supreme Court Race as Democrats Take Stand Against Donald Trump, Elon Musk, WPR (Apr. 1, 2025, 8:48 CT), https://www.wpr.org/news/susan-crawford-wins-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-democrats-elon-musk. ^

[44] Wis. Stat. section 731.035, enacted in 2011, established a unique procedure for redistricting cases. They must go to a panel of three circuit court judges, then can be directly appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This process has not been fully tested until these cases. See Shawn Johnson, Wisconsin Congressional Map Lawsuits Move Forward as State Supreme Court Appoints Panels, WPR (Nov. 25, 2025, 10:09 CT), https://www.wpr.org/news/wisconsin-congressional-map-lawsuits-forward-state-supreme-court-panels. ^

[45] Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants, Bothfeld v. Wisconsin Elections Comm’n, No. 2026AP001168 (Wis. July 20, 2026). ^

[46] Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants, Wisconsin Bus. Leaders for Democracy v. Wisconsin Elections Comm’n, No. 2026AP001008 (Wis. June 30, 2026). ^

[47] 2004 WI 58, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. ^

[48] See Service Emps. Int’l Union Healthcare Wis. v. Wisconsin Emp. Rels. Comm’n, 2025 WI 29, ¶ 51, 416 Wis. 2d 688, 22 N.W.3d 876 (Dallet, J., concurring); id. ¶ 36 (R.G. Bradley, J., concurring); N.K.B., 2026 WI 22, 421 Wis. 2d 58 (Bradley, J., concurring) (defending the Kalal approach). ^

[49] Labor & Industry Review Commission’s Petition for Review, Abby Windows, LLC v. Labor & Indus. Rev. Comm’n, No. 2024AP001013 (Wis. Aug. 21, 2025). ^

[50] Abbotsford Educ. Ass’n v. Wisconsin Emp. Rels. Comm’n, No. 2024AP2429 (Wis. Ct. App. July 29, 2026), petition for review filed (Wis. Aug. 17, 2026). ^

[51] Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Boehm, No. 2024AP2484 (Wis. Ct. App. July 29, 2026), petition for review filed (Wis. Aug. 10, 2026); Eucke v. Wisconsin Elections Comm’n, No. 2024CV007822 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Oct. 28, 2024), appeal docketed, No. 2025AP000007 (Wis. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2024). ^

[52] Order, Voces de la Frontera v. Gerber, No. 2025AP2121-OA (Wis. July 6, 2026) (granting stay while waiting for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to address respondents’ appeal of the federal district court’s order remanding the case to state court). ^

[53] Anya Van Wagtendonk, Conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler to Retire, WPR (Mar. 10, 2026, 8:24 CT), https://www.wpr.org/news/annette-ziegler-conservative-wisconsin-supreme-court-chief-justice-retire. ^