wisconsinprelawland-blog - Tumblr blog

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

Janet Protasiewicz Wins Wisconsin Supreme Court Election

By Iyanu Osunmo, Lawrence University Class of 2023

April 24, 2023

Liberal candidate Janet Protasiewics won the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. Protasiewicz’s victory has granted liberals their first majority in 15 years [1]. The Supreme Court race was the most exorbitant state judicial election in U.S. history, with stakeholders spending more than $45 million [2]. Protasiewicz secured an 11-point victory over Daniel Kelly, even though there are slightly fewer Democratic voters than Republican voters in Wisconsin [3].

Inevitably, Protasiewicz will influence the fate of Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban and redistricting in Wisconsin. While Republicans currently hold a majority of U.S. House seats in Wisconsin, the Supreme Court could redraw Wisconsin’s congressional map to confer Democrats an advantage in congressional races. Furthermore, Protasiewicz will be among the justices determining the outcome of any election lawsuits that may be filed in state court after the 2024 presidential election [1]. This is especially crucial because Wisconsin is a swing state.

Although Protasiewicz did not assure voters that she would rule on cases in a certain way, she has expressed support for access to abortion and has asserted that Wisconsin’s Republican-drawn congressional maps are “rigged” [1]. Additionally, she derived a significant amount of campaign funding from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, which in tandem with statements she made during her campaign, makes it probable that she will adopt a liberal stance on certain divisive cases [1].

According to Protasiewicz, Wisconsin “is taking a step forward to a better and brighter future where…rights and freedoms will be protected” [1].

Undoubtedly, Protasiewicz’s victory could be construed as an indication of the influence that abortion and reproductive healthcare have over Democratic voters’ turnout [3]. Abortion rights were central to Protasiewicz’s campaign, particularly in consideration of the stringency of Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law.

According to the statute, “any person, other than the mother, who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child is guilty of a Class H felony [4]. Additionally, the statute states that any person, other than the mother, who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child; or causes the death of the mother by an act done with intent to destroy the life of an unborn child is guilty of a Class E felony [4]:

Class H felonies are punishable by up to six years in state prison and a $10,000 fine [5]. Class E felonies are punishable by up to 15 years in state prison and a maximum fine of $50,000 [6].

According to Quarles and Brady attorney Richie Davis, “The Wisconsin law is rather ambiguous, and a reasonable clinical disagreement on medical necessity can expose a physician to potential criminal liability” which will “turn on the facts and circumstances surrounding the specific patient” [7]

The abortion law, however,  allows an exception for “therapeutic abortions”, which physicians have deemed an archaic term [7]:

Notably, Wisconsin’s abortion law was enacted prior to the emergence of germ theory of disease, pasteurization, and vaccination, and consequently does not allow for exceptions in cases of ectopic pregnancies or the removal of a fetus that has died [7].

Protasiewicz’s victory has conferred liberals a 4-3 majority on the Wisconsin State Supreme court, enabling progressives to eventually overturn the state’s abortion law [7]. Her victory has proven discouraging for conservatives and pro-life activists.

“The demand for anti-abortion legislation just cost Republicans another crucial race”, conservative commentator Ann Coulter stated in response to the election outcome [8].

______________________________________________________________

[1]Johnson, S. (2023, April 5). For the first time in 15 years, Liberals win control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. NPR. Retrieved April 24, 2023, https://www.npr.org/2023/04/04/1167815077/wisconsin-supreme-court-election-results-abortion-voting-protasiewicz-kelly

[2]Sayki, I. (2023, April 10). Wisconsin Supreme Court race was the most expensive state judicial election in U.S. history. OpenSecrets News. Retrieved April 24, 2023, from https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/04/wisconsin-supreme-court-race-was-the-most-expensive-state-judicial-election-in-u-s-history/

[3] Gilbert, C. (2023, April 17). Lessons from the Wisconsin Supreme Court Race: Why the alarm bells for Republicans are Ringing Louder. Journal Sentinel. Retrieved April 24, 2023, from https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/analysis/2023/04/17/wisconsin-supreme-court-race-has-alarm-bells-ringing-for-republicans-heading-into-2024-elections/70111854007/

[4] 1849 Wisconsin Criminal Abortion Statute. Planned Parenthood Action Fund. (n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2023, https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/uploads/filer_public/08/20/08209548-a06b-4dfc-9cd5-73cb4489955d/wisconsin_abortion_statute_langugage.pdf

[5] Class H felony in Wisconsin Sentencing & Penalties. Sentencing & Penalties for a Class H Felony in Wisconsin | Grieve Law Milwaukee, Brookfield, Madison, WI. (n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2023, from https://www.grievelaw.com/Penalties/WisconsinFelony/ClassH

[6]Class E felony in Wisconsin Sentencing & Penalties. Sentencing & Penalties for a Class E Felony in Wisconsin | Grieve Law Milwaukee, Brookfield, Madison, WI. (n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2023, from https://www.grievelaw.com/Penalties/WisconsinFelony/ClassE

[7]Wisconsin's 1849 ban allows only life-saving 'therapeutic abortions' - no one knows what that means. PBS Wisconsin. (2022, August 31). Retrieved April 24, 2023, from https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/wisconsins-1849-ban-allows-only-life-saving-therapeutic-abortions-no-one-knows-what-that-means/

[8]Roche, D. (2023, April 5). Conservatives despondent after Democrats' wisconsin victory: "very bad day". Newsweek. Retrieved April 24, 2023, from https://www.newsweek.com/conservatives-despondent-democrats-wisconsin-victory-1792640

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

Wisconsin Supreme Court Candidates Daniel Kelly and Janet Protasiewicz Debate Abortion and Redistricting

By Iyanu Osunmo, Lawrence University Class of 2023

April 4, 2023

Conservative candidate Daniel Kelly and liberal candidate Janet Protasiewicz met for the only debate for the open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court on March 21. Thus far, this election is the most expensive state Supreme Court race in U.S. history. Notably, the Brennan Center for Justice has recorded that almost $29 million was used for political ads during the election [2]. The outcome of this race will determine whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court has a liberal or conservative majority and will impact the fate of redistricting, and the state’s 1849 abortion ban. Accordingly, much of the debate centered around these two issues.

The State Bar of Wisconsin and WISC-TV sponsored debate was conducted in a traditional format [3]. The debate was also held at the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Madison headquarters and moderated by a WISC-TV reporter [4].

Throughout the debate, both candidates directed several attacks at one another, mirroring the messages present in their attack ads as opposed to emphasizing their respective judicial philosophies. This aggressive approach was evident in the way they referred to one another: Protasiewicz referred to Kelly as her 'opponent', and Kelly referred to her as “Janet” [5].

Protasiewicz asserted that her opponent was a “true threat to democracy” because of his involvement in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election [1]. Notably, former Wisconsin GOP chairman Andrew Hitt confessed that he and Kelly discussed the fake electors scheme extensively [1]. She also characterized Kelly as “one of the most extreme partisan characters in the history of the state” [1]. After asserting this, Protasiewicz cited Kelly’s previous attempt to run for the Wisconsin Supreme Court from the Republican party’s headquarters in Madison as a testament to the validity of her accusations [5].

In response, Kelly accused Protasiewicz of lying and specified that he had extensive conversations with multiple attorneys and that his conversations with Hitt lasted a mere 30 minutes [1]. Kelly also criticized Protasiewicz for being “bought and paid for by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin” and lambasted her for declining to engage in other public forums, including a debate hosted by WISN-TV [1]. According to event organizers for a March 14 luncheon hosted by WisPolitics.com, the Milwaukee Press Club, and the Rotary Club of Milwaukee, only Kelly agreed to attend the event even though both candidates were invited [3].

During the debate, the candidates also sparred over abortion rights in Wisconsin. Protasiewicz stated that while she did not determine how she would rule on Wisconsin’s abortion ban, Kelly already had. Even so, she faced a question about why the abortion rights groups that contributed funding to her campaign would grant her endorsements if they did not anticipate that she would end Wisconsin’s abortion ban [5]. Protasiewicz affirmed that the 1849 abortion ban would “stay on the books” if Kelly were to win the election and mentioned Kelly's endorsements from anti-abortion organizations [5].

Kelly, however, responded by accusing Protasiewicz of dishonesty.

“This seems to be a pattern for you Janet, just tell a lie,” Kelly expressed [6]. “You don’t know what I’m thinking about that abortion ban. You have no idea. ... I had no conversations with those organizations about how I would rule on any issue, including the abortion issue” [6].

Even so, Kelly was once an employee of Wisconsin Right to Life and articulated in a blog post that abortion takes the life of an unborn child [6]. He has previously provided counsel to an anti-abortion organization. Kelly faced accusations of working for the Republican Party of Wisconsin last year. In response to these claims, he claimed that the Republican party was merely one of his legal clients [6].

While the Wisconsin Supreme Court race is officially ‘nonpartisan’ in actuality, it has been highly partisan, and the stances adopted by both candidates on key issues have aligned with those of the Democratic and Republican parties. This debate exemplified the divisive nature of this election, as well as the strategies that both candidates have employed to attain a seat on the state Supreme Court.

______________________________________________________________

[1]Edelman, A., & Marquez, A. (2023, March 21). Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates have first and only debate. NBCNews.com. Retrieved April 3, 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/wisconsin-supreme-court-candidates-first-only-debate-rcna75915

[2]Johnson, S. (2023, April 2). In a Supreme Court race like no other, Wisconsin's political future is up for grabs. NPR. Retrieved April 3, 2023, https://www.npr.org/2023/04/02/1167316806/wisconsin-supreme-court-race-election-abortion-redistricting-protasiewicz-kelly

[3]Edelman, A. (2023, March 7). Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates agree to single debate. NBCNews.com. Retrieved April 3, 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/wisconsin-supreme-court-candidates-agree-single-debate-rcna73769

[4]Shur, A. (2023, March 21). Here's how to watch the Wisconsin Supreme Court debate on Tuesday. Wisconsin State Journal. Retrieved April 3, 2023, https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/heres-how-to-watch-the-wisconsin-supreme-court-debate-on-tuesday/article_8ad1df02-7ba0-54d9-a851-b0f200cf7ffc.html

[5]Johnson, S. (2023, March 23). Dan Kelly, Janet Protasiewicz get personal in debate for Wisconsin's hotly-contested Supreme Court seat. Wisconsin Public Radio. Retrieved April 3, 2023, https://www.wpr.org/dan-kelly-janet-protasiewicz-debate-wisconsin-supreme-court-seat

[6]Bauer, S. (2023, March 21). Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates clash over abortion, maps. AP NEWS. Retrieved April 3, 2023, https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-election-abortion-trump-81e311c9d0416d4a04489ad7a38c134d

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

Janet Protasiewicz and Daniel Kelly Advance to Wisconsin Supreme Court General Election

By Iyanu Osunmo, Lawrence University Class of 2023

March 6, 2023

Wisconsin State Supreme Court candidates Janet Protasiewicz and Daniel Kelly have advanced through the primaries to the general election, which will be held on April 4, 2023. Upon winning the race, either Protasiewicz or Kelly will serve on the court for a 10-year term [2]. The court has a conservative 4-3 majority, therefore, the victor of this race will determine whether the court has a liberal or conservative majority [2]. While Kelly secured roughly 24% of the votes, Protasiewicz acquired 46%. This race is among the most important this year, as it will determine the fate of Wisconsin’s abortion ban, redistricting, schools, and voting rights [4].

Notably, the Wisconsin Supreme Court race is already the most expensive judicial race in United States history [5]. In under a week into the general election, candidates spent $18 million [5]. Protasiewicz’s campaign has received millions from Democrats, while Republican groups have invested $1 million in advertisements to bolster Kelly’s campaign [5]. This election also saw high voter turnout: 960,000 voters headed to the polls [6].

According to Wisconsin state Democratic party chair Ben Wikler, this election “is the hinge on which Wisconsin’s political future will swing. And Wisconsin is the hinge on which national politics swings” [6].

Protasiewicz, a liberal Milwaukee County Circuit Judge, has shattered fundraising records, raising four times more money than her competitors in the primary and more than all other candidates combined [3]. Furthermore, she has received an endorsement from Emily’s List, a pro-choice political action committee [2]. If Protasiewicz emerges victorious, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will have a liberal majority for the first time since 2008 [4]. If the court has a liberal majority, then numerous republican-backed policies could be jeopardized, including Wisconsin’s private-school voucher program [5].

Protasiewicz spoke candidly about her stance on divisive issues and emphasized her values when reaching out to voters [4]. Seemingly, she has also chosen to use Kelly’s stance on abortion and his previous career as a defense attorney against him [6].

Protasiewicz has asserted that she “values a woman’s freedom to make her own reproductive healthcare decisions with her doctor, family, and faith” [4]. She has also expressed that she values democracy and reaffirmed the right of every Wisconsinite to be represented [4].

During his primary campaign, Daniel Kelly raised $470,000–a fraction of what his competitor earned [4]. However, Kelly has benefited greatly from CEO and GOP mega-donor Richard Uihlein’s $1.5 million donation to Fair Courts America, which is a group that has backed his campaign [4]. Thus far, Fair Courts America has purchased over $2.4 million in ad buys [4]. While he has not stated how he would rule on Attorney General Josh Kaul’s lawsuit asserting that Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law is unenforceable, Kelly has also received the support of certain grassroots organizations, including Wisconsin Right to Life and Wisconsin Family Action [4].

Daniel Kelly is also a Donald Trump supporter who advised Republicans on legal avenues for overturning the 2020 presidential election results [7]. Consequently, Kelly was involved with Trump allies’ endeavor to reverse the 2020 presidential election results in Wisconsin using “fake electors” [7]. Even so, Jim Dick–Daniel Kelly’s campaign spokesperson–has stated that Kelly "believes Joe Biden is the duly elected president of the United States" [7].

Kelly has asserted, “If we do not resist this assault on our Constitution and our liberties, we will lose the Rule of Law, and will find ourselves saddled with the Rule of Janet…We must not allow this to come to pass" [4].

According to the senior adviser to Kelly’s campaign Ben Voelkel, Democrats’ strategy of rendering the election a “single-issue” contest on abortion was shortsighted because conservatives are likely to oppose Protasiewicz by targeting her stances on gun rights and charter schools [6]. Voelkel also indicated that the Kelly campaign would use her judicial record against her.

“She had very, very lenient sentences for some people who committed very heinous crimes,” Voelkel asserted [6].

This election, which is the largest of 2023, has undoubtedly captured the attention of political stakeholders across the nation because of the implications that it will have on numerous crucial issues, such as abortion, in Wisconsin and across the country.

______________________________________________________________

[1]Bauer, S. (2023, February 21). Protasiewicz, Kelly Advance in 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court Primary. PBS Wisconsin. https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/protasiewicz-kelly-advance-in-2023-wisconsin-supreme-court-primary/

[2]Edelman, A. (2023, February 22). Trump Ally Advances in Wisconsin State Supreme Court Race. NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/daniel-kelly-wisconsin-supreme-court-trump-fake-electors-rcna71276

[3]Henry Redman, W. E. F. 13. (2023, February 13). Protasiewicz' fundraising advantage continues. Wisconsin Examiner. https://wisconsinexaminer.com/brief/protasiewicz-fundraising-advantage-continues/

[4]Johnson, S. (2023, February 23). Janet Protasiewicz, Dan Kelly to face off in high-stakes Wisconsin Supreme Court Election. Wisconsin Public Radio. https://www.wpr.org/janet-protasiewicz-wisconsin-supreme-court-primary-election-results-dan-kelly-jennifer-dorow-everett-mitchell

[5]Beck, M. (2023, March 1). Wisconsin's Supreme Court race is already the most expensive in U.S. history, and there are still 5 weeks to go. Journal Sentinel. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/02/28/wisconsin-supreme-court-race-already-most-expensive-in-u-s-history/69955195007/

[6]Montellaro, Z., & Messerly, M. (2023, February 27). The biggest election of 2023 reaches final sprint. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/27/wisconsin-supreme-court-election-00084406

[7]Edelman, A. (2023, February 21). Trump ally advances in Wisconsin State Supreme Court Race. NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/daniel-kelly-wisconsin-supreme-court-trump-fake-electors-rcna71276

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

Criminal Justice Advocacy Groups File Lawsuit To Block Ballot Measures

By Iyanu Osunmo, Lawrence University Class of 2023

February 8, 2023

Criminal Justice advocacy organizations EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM filed a lawsuit on Jan. 31 against the Dane County Circuit Court elections commission asserting that two Republican-backed ballot measures were not submitted to election officials within the allotted time frame [1]. WISDOM, a statewide network of faith-based organizations, encompasses EXPO (Ex - Incarcerated People Organizing), which is also a statewide network [3]. WISDOM and EXPO both oppose mass incarceration and accordingly oppose the ballot measures.

The lawsuit filed by the activist organizations asserts that “the Resolutions were not timely filed and therefore that they do not qualify for inclusion on the ballot for the April 4, 2023 Spring Election” and requests that the court prevent the resolutions’ inclusion on the ballot [4]. Attorneys from Law Forward and Stafford Rosenbaum law firms will represent the organizations. Both law firms have previously challenged Republican-drafted laws [4].

The legislature submitted the ballot measures to the state elections commissions on Jan. 19. Subsequently, the commission filed them with county election officials on Jan. 26. and informed the clerks that they ought to be included in the April 4 ballot [1]. However, state law stipulates that ballot measures be filed with the official or agency responsible for ballot preparation at least 70 days before the election, rendering the deadline for submitting them Jan. 25 [1]. Therefore, the lawsuit claims that local officials, rather than the state elections commission prepare the ballot and that the measures were supposed to be delivered to clerks and the Milwaukee County Elections Commission by Jan. 25 [1].

One of the measures addressed in the lawsuit was a constitutional amendment proposed by the Wisconsin Assembly requiring judges to consider more factors relevant to defendants' risk to public safety [2]. These factors include an individual’s criminal background, which would make it more difficult for criminals to leave jail on bail [2]. This amendment was approved in the last legislative session and passed with bipartisan support, and is expected to increase conservative voter turnout during the 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election [5].

According to Republican Representative William Penterman, the bail amendment would be a “huge step in the right direction for holding violent, career criminals accountable” [2].

However, Democratic Representative Dora Drake argued that other measures could be implemented to promote safety, such as eliminating cash bail [2]. Despite the disagreement within the Assembly concerning this measure, every candidate in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race has expressed support for the bill amendment, which gained increased support after the 2021 Darrell Brooks case.

The second ballot measure targeted by the lawsuit is a non-binding advisory referendum asking voters to determine whether they think that welfare recipients who do not have children and are able-bodied should be required to search for employment [2]. Wisconsin state law requires those receiving unemployment benefits to seek employment. However, the Biden administration's pandemic restrictions have interfered with these laws. Democrats have accused Republicans of using the welfare referendum to increase conservative voter turnout for the Supreme Court Race.

Democratic Representative Christine Sinicki dismissed the referendum as unnecessary, stating, “This is already law, and it is enforced. Somebody who's on unemployment insurance, if they're offered a job, they have to take it, or they lose their benefits. Granted, much of that was waived during COVID, but it's put back in place” [6].

WISDOM expects the bail amendment to disproportionately impact minority or low-income people awaiting trial [7].

“[The bail amendment] is actually creating a situation where people can be held without bail or with higher bail, not because of the danger they present, but just because of who they are,” David Liners, the executive director of Wisdom stated. “If you look at the wording of the amendment, it basically just uses the fact that you are someone of a previous conviction, whether or not that’s even germane to what’s going on in the case” [7].

Liners has also expressed that he does not believe that the welfare referendum would have any bearing on the way public benefits are distributed [7]. Liners asserted that the referendum is “sending a dog whistle message that people who get public benefits are people who are lazy and don’t wanna work… The only purpose for that advisory referendum is to try to send a public relations message” [7].

Through the lawsuit, WISDOM and EXPO hope to ultimately delay the vote on the measures and to draw attention to the issues they perceive in these measures [7].

According to Liners, the groups believe that “people deserve time to really think and talk about what the implications of this constitutional amendment would be and who it would harm” [7].

______________________________________________________________

[1]Bauer, S. (2023, January 31). Lawsuit: Keep bail, welfare amendments off Wisconsin ballot. Wisconsin Watch. Retrieved February 8, 2023, from https://wisconsinwatch.org/2023/01/lawsuit-keep-bail-and-welfare-amendments-off-wisconsin-ballot/

[2]Venhuizen, H. (2023, January 19). Wisconsin Assembly puts Bail Amendment on April ballot. AP NEWS. Retrieved February 8, 2023, from https://apnews.com/article/politics-wisconsin-state-government-tony-evers-f1ed4951d9275604a063d9cc357ceae3

[3]Wisdom. (n.d.). About WISDOM. WISDOM. Retrieved February 8, 2023, from https://wisdomwisconsin.org/who-we-are

[4] Bauer, S. (2023, January 31). Lawsuit seeks to block 2 measures from April ballot. AP NEWS. Retrieved February 8, 2023, from https://apnews.com/article/politics-wisconsin-state-government-lawsuits-265766c54e025675f38123b350f82002

[5]Bauer, S. (2023, February 1). Lawsuit seeks to block bail measure, welfare question from Wisconsin's 2023 ballot. PBS Wisconsin. Retrieved February 8, 2023, from https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/lawsuit-seeks-to-block-bail-measure-welfare-question-from-wisconsins-2023-ballot/

[6]Quirmbach, C. (2023, January 20). Advisory referendum on welfare recipients heads to Wisconsin voters in April. WUWM 89.7 FM - Milwaukee's NPR. Retrieved February 8, 2023, from https://www.wuwm.com/2023-01-20/advisory-referendum-on-welfare-recipients-heads-to-wisconsin-voters-in-april

[7]Brogan, C. (2023, February 4). Criminal Justice advocacy groups file lawsuit to keep measures off April ballot. The Badger Herald. Retrieved February 8, 2023, from https://badgerherald.com/news/2023/02/03/criminal-justice-advocacy-groups-file-lawsuit-to-keep-measures-off-april-ballot/

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

Four Candidates Compete in Crucial Wisconsin Supreme Court Race

By Iyanu Osunmo, Lawrence University Class of 2023

January 24, 2023

Four candidates—Daniel Kelly, Everett Mitchell, Janet Protasiewicz, and Jennifer Dorow—are competing for a position on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a nonpartisan primary occurring on Feb 21, 2023 [1]. The two candidates who acquire the most votes will compete in the nonpartisan general election in early April. The elected candidate will replace Justice Patience Roggensack, who does not intend to run for re-election after her term expires on July 31, 2023 [1].

Wisconsin supreme court elections are nonpartisan. However, the current court seemingly has a 4-3 conservative majority [1]. Roggensack is a member of the court’s conservative majority. Therefore, this race will determine whether the Wisconsin supreme court will have a liberal or conservative majority. Molly Beck of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal has identified Dan Kelly and Jennifer Dorow as conservatives and Everett Mitchell and Janet Protasiewicz as liberals [12]. The Wisconsin state supreme court race is inarguably the most consequential election in the United States because it will determine whether conservatives or liberals hold a majority on the supreme court in a presidential battleground state [2].

This election will have an impact on numerous crucial issues including redistricting, abortion rights, and criminal justice. The Democratic candidates intend to overturn Wisconsin’s stringent 1849 law banning abortion in nearly all cases [2]. Democrats also wish to undermine the Republican gerrymandering. This election is particularly important for liberals because if a conservative candidate attains the open seat, then there will be a conservative majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court until at least 2026 [2]. Simultaneously, the conservative candidates have emphasized crime rates in their campaign messaging [2].  

Dorow joined the Waukesha County Circuit Court after being appointed by Governor Scott Walker in 2012 [3]. Dorow has asserted in her campaign announcement that, “We must replace Justice Roggensack with a judicial conservative who will fairly and faithfully apply the law as written to the facts of the cases that come before the court” [3]. Dorow presided as judge in the 2022 Darrell Brooks trial, who was convicted in the 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade murders. She referenced this role during the first 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court forum:

"I heard from judges across the country and even inmates, who sent letters praising my efforts to be fair and impartial in the face of extreme disrespect, disruption and at times even vile behavior,” Dorow stated [9].

Kelly, an avowed constitutional conservative, has promised to “preserve constitutional rights, uphold the rule of law, and prevent judicial activism” [4]. He previously served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 2016 to 2020 and has been endorsed by current Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Rebecca Bradley [5].

Mitchell was previously elected to the Dane County Circuit Court in 2016 and has been endorsed by former Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle [6]. Mitchell has stated that “[P]reserving the integrity and independence of the court has never been more important. … Wisconsinites deserve a justice who has the highest respect for the Wisconsin Constitution and is committed to ensuring that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is an instrument of balance and justice rather than partisan divide” [3]. If elected, Mitchell would be the first Black justice elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Protasiewicz, who in 2014 won a seat on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, has been endorsed by Milwaukee County Court Commissioner Ana Berrios-Schroeder [7]. Protasiewicz has stated, “We must restore confidence that judges aren’t just trying to reach their favored outcomes, but actually applying the law and the constitution. I’m running to restore integrity to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and get politics out of the courtroom” [3].

Protasiewicz has surpassed her competitors in terms of campaign fundraising, raising more money than Dorow, Kelly, and Mitchell combined [8]. However, GOP mega donor-backed Fair Courts America has promised to spend millions of dollars on Kelly’s campaign, praising the candidate as being a “consistent conservative with impeccable judgment and superior intellect” [10]. Thus far, Dorow has raised $306,919, Mitchell $115,689, Kelly $312,359, and Protasiewicz $924,349 [13].  Because of the cruciality of the Wisconsin Supreme Court race for abortion policy, Planned Parenthood intends to invest six figures in the race [11]. Wisconsin Right to Life also plans to inform its members of how crucial this race is, but will allocate more attention to the general election [11].

______________________________________________________________

[1] Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2023. Ballotpedia. (2023).

https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin_Supreme_Court_elections,_2023

[2] Epstein, R. J. (2023, January 16). A colossal off-year election in Wisconsin. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/01/16/us/politics/wisconsin-supreme-court.html

[3] Wonacott, S., & Wonacott, S. (2023, January 11). State Supreme Court Balance at stake in Wisconsin. Ballotpedia News. https://news.ballotpedia.org/2023/01/11/state-supreme-court-balance-at-stake-in-wisconsin/

[4] Judicial conservative Daniel Kelly for Wisconsin Supreme Court. Judicial Conservative Daniel Kelly for Wisconsin Supreme Court. (2023, January 11). https://justicedanielkelly.com/

[5] Endorsements. Judicial Conservative Daniel Kelly for Wisconsin Supreme Court. (2022, December 8). https://justicedanielkelly.com/endorsements/

[6] Endorsements. Judge Mitchell for Wisconsin Supreme Court. (2022). from https://www.judgeeverettmitchell.com/endorsements

[7] Endorsements. Janet for Justice. (2022). https://www.janetforjustice.com/endorse

[8] Bauer, Scott. (2023, January 18). Protasiewicz leads in money race for Wisconsin Supreme Court. AP NEWS. https://apnews.com/article/politics-wisconsin-103f773d2480c244ef04b093943c810a

[9]Schultz, Z. (2023, January 10). Candidates tangle over political issues, judicial perspectives at first 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court Forum. PBS Wisconsin. https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/candidates-tangle-over-political-issues-judicial-perspectives-at-first-2023-wisconsin-supreme-court-forum/

[10] Fair Courts America: Statement on upcoming Wisconsin Supreme Court race. WisPolitics. (2022, November 17). https://www.wispolitics.com/2022/fair-courts-america-statement-on-upcoming-wisconsin-supreme-court-race

[11] Montellaro, Z., & Messerly, M. (2023, January 16). 'The most important election nobody's ever heard of'. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/16/wisconsin-state-supreme-court-race-abortion-00077958

[12] Beck, M. (2023, January 17). The 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court race will decide control of the bench. here's a closer look at the four candidates. Journal Sentinel. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/17/four-candidates-wisconsin-supreme-court-jennifer-dorow-dan-kelly-everett-mitchell-janet-protasiewicz/69790948007/

[13]Yount , B. (2023, January 23). Wisconsin Supreme Court election ads hitting Airwaves. The Center Square. https://www.thecentersquare.com/wisconsin/wisconsin-supreme-court-election-ads-hitting-airwaves/article_68bce9f0-9b5c-11ed-9736-a7fc49a59e20.html

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/17/four-candidates-wisconsin-supreme-court-jennifer-dorow-dan-kelly-everett-mitchell-janet-protasiewicz/69790948007/

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/16/wisconsin-state-supreme-court-race-abortion-00077958

https://news.ballotpedia.org/2023/01/11/state-supreme-court-balance-at-stake-in-wisconsin/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/01/16/us/politics/wisconsin-supreme-court.html

https://isthmus.com/news/news/key-wisconsin-supreme-court-choice-could-come-before-april/

https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/highlights-from-the-first-2023-wisconsin-supreme-court-forum/

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

Trump Sued Over Death Of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Sicknick

By Iyanu Osunmo, Lawrence University Class of 2023

January 11, 2023

The 47-page wrongful death lawsuit filed by Sandra Garza, the late U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick’s partner, asserts that the officer’s death was attributable to Trump’s incitement of the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan 6, 2021 [1]. The lawsuit also demands damages from two men accused of attacking Sicknick: George Tanios and Julian Elie Khater. Garza filed the $10 million lawsuit on behalf of Sicknick’s estate in the U.S. District Court in Washington one day before the second anniversary of the infamous event [2]. The lawsuit claims that Sicknick, who had been guarding the U.S. Capitol’s perimeter, suffered two strokes and passed away after being assaulted with chemical spray.

“Nothing can return Officer Sicknick to his fiancée or his family, but this lawsuit is an important part of the process of holding those who caused his death accountable" stated Matt Kaiser, the attorney for Sicknick’s estate, in a statement in the release shared on Twitter [3]

The assailants allegedly sprayed Sicknick with a “chemical substance” outside the U.S. Capitol at around 2:20 p.m. [4] Eight hours later, Sicknick collapsed and was transported to a hospital by D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services where he died the following day at 9:30 p.m. [4].

Washington D.C.’s chief medical examiner Dr. Francisco Diaz determined that Sicknick died of natural causes. According to Dr. Diaz, Sicknick passed because of “acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis” which is a “natural” manner of death [4]. Prosecutors have also refrained from connecting Sicknick’s passing with the assault [2]. However, the lawsuit asserts that the Jan 6 attack impacted his condition, which was corroborated by the medical examiner [2]. The U.S. Capitol Police stated that Sicknick died because of “injuries sustained while on-duty" in its announcement of Sicknick’s death [4].

Garza’s lawsuit claims Sicknick’s passing was a “direct and foreseeable consequence” of Trump’s allegations of theft and incitement of the violent mob that attacked the Capitol. Garza’s lawsuit, accordingly, establishes a direct link between Trump’s rhetoric, the violence exhibited by those who stormed the Capitol, and Sicknick’s passing, citing instances of Trump encouraging the mob to “fight like hell”. 

The lawsuit also calls attention to Trump’s alleged predilection for encouraging violence through his rhetoric and social media posts, as well as his unwillingness to concede defeat after the 2020 presidential election. Notably, the lawsuit cites a number of tweets in chronological order that allude to Trump’s culpability for the events that transpired on Jan 6, 2021. In doing so, the lawsuit seeks to establish an unequivocal link between Trump’s long history of using inflammatory rhetoric and the events that led to Sicknick’s death.

The lawsuit also cites instances of Trump allegedly attempting to undermine election results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and other states, attempting to establish a definitive connection between his inflammatory rhetoric and the actions of his supporters.

According to Kaiser, Garza will donate any money garnered from the lawsuit to charity [3]. Kyle Cheney, a senior legal affairs reporter for Politico made a Twitter post stating that the lawsuit has been assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta [5].

Trump’s spokesperson dismissed the lawsuit as a frivolous attack in a statement made on Jan 6 [2]. This lawsuit is one of numerous civil lawsuits claiming that Trump is culpable for major financial damages due to the role he played before and during the Jan 6 attack [2]. In Feb 2022, a federal judge permitted three civil suits against Trump to proceed.

______________________________________________________________

[1]Kim, J. (2023, January 6). Trump and two rioters are sued over the death of Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/01/06/1147357087/trump-and-two-rioters-are-sued-over-the-death-of-capitol-police-officer-brian-si

[2] Cameron, C. (2023, January 6). Trump is sued in death of Capitol Police Officer after Jan. 6. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/us/politics/trump-lawsuit-brian-sicknick.html

[3] Patterson, C. (2023, January 6). Donald Trump sued by fiancée of Brian Sicknick, officer who died after responding to Jan. 6 riots. People. https://people.com/politics/donald-trump-sued-by-fiancee-of-brian-sicknick-officer-who-died-after-responding-to-jan-6-riots/

[4] Cher. (2021, April 19). Capitol officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes but riot 'played a role': Medical examiner. People. https://people.com/crime/brian-sicknick-died-natural-causes-riot-played-role-says-medical-examiner/

[5] Kyle Cheney, K.C. [@kyledcheney]. (2023, January 6). The lawsut filed by Brian SICKNICK's partner, Sandra Garza, has been assigned to Judge MEHTA and linked to a series of other lawsuits that are pending currently at the Appeals Court. [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1611376240157462529

[6] Garza v. Trump and Khater and Tanios, (N.D. Washington D.C. 2023) https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/suit-on-the-behalf-of-brian-sicknick/f2782f5c3cab84ff/full.pdf

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

Abortion In Wisconsin

By Diego Sanchez, Lawrence University Class 2023

September 7, 2022

With the overturning of Roe v Wade, there has been a significant effect on the United States population and changed laws in states. As soon as Roe v Wade was overturned by the US supreme court, almost all Wisconsin clinics completely stopped abortions. The concerns were trigger bans This has caused confusion for many clinics in Wisconsin because there is evidence that abortion is illegal without being banned.

Trigger bans have been implemented in many states; this is a way to implement a law once a series of actions happen, such as the overturning of Roe v Wade[1]. Even if the trigger bans are not officially active, abortions in the state of Wisconsin have stopped for concern over legal confusion. Part of the controversy with the decision to overturn Roe v Wade is that Wisconsin has had the right to abortion. In 1849 and 1858, Wisconsin made abortion illegal except when endangering the mother's life[2]. However, Roe v  Wade overturned these laws, making abortion legal when the supreme court overturned the law. Governors have tried to keep abortion rights for the state; this is evident in many places, such as  Wisconsin. Governor Evers and attorney general of Wisconsin Josh Kuala[3]. The lawsuit is based on the 1973 law ruling that Roe v Wade has no bearing on abortion; since that time, abortion laws have been passed, making abortion legal under state laws; with these state abortion laws, it is still legal to perform abortion because of Wisconsin state laws [3]. The governor was blunt and stated that this was a right that needed to be protected. This may also be suited for clarification because these laws have confounding problems. As stated before, this is not an easy issue to resolve; if it is left up to the states, then state law may contradict previous laws already established based on Roe v. Wade. Such as a 1996 law that mandates that in order to have an abortion a person must wait 24 hours before performing the abortion[4].

Due to the complexity of the law, the initial response from Republicans was supposed to be completed by August 15th but is now delayed till September 14th. The previous abortion ban was enacted in 1849, and the language has been described as outdated. Part of the reason for the complexity of the law may be that the Supreme Court established a new president that allowed them to overturn established law [1]. Wisconsin statute 940.04 is a law that bans abortion in Wisconsin and is cited as the trigger law without Roe v Wade enforcement[5]. This law is applicable, but there is a law specifically on how a physician can adequately conduct an abortion essentially if Roe v. Wade is overturned the presidency also revoked. Evers and Kaul argue that since this is a state decision, its laws already determine that abortions are legal.

The personal toll on people has been that they have not been able to seek an abortion or know if it is possible to obtain an abortion. The complexity has even meant that abortions for medical reasons have been put on hold due to ambiguity in the law, which has been of great concern for people in the country. One problem with abortion, in general, is what happens when someone seeks abortion across state lines, such as in Illinois. Illinois is still providing abortion, and many workers that previously staffed planned parenthood clinics now begin working in Illinois [6]. This is another confusing gray area. The question surrounding this lawsuit is what happens when laws set on precedence  are passed.There precedence when the Supreme Court overturns a law that has been set[1]. This legal question and the legal battle may continue for months with no end in sight. Currently, clinics in Wisconsin are not performing abortions for fear of consequences as no one knows what laws may change as a result of the decision; this puts stress on many people who feel their rights have been taken away. On the other hand, some feel this is a win to protect life. Either way, it still seems that the law is not yet settled, and changes and clarifications will become present decisions that will affect the legal landscape for years.

______________________________________________________________

[1] de Vogue, Ariane. Sneed, Tierney. Duster, Chandleis, and Cole, Devan. CNN. June 24, 2022.  Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. Aug 29, 2022.

[2] Beck, Molly. MIlwaukee Journal Sentinel. June 29, 2022.  Tony Evers, Josh Kaul file lawsuit challenging Wisconsin's 1849 law banning abortions, calling it unenforceable.  Aug 29, 2022.

[3] Wisconsin Department of Justice. Jun 28 2022 Gov. Evers, AG Kaul Announce Direct Legal Challenge to Wisconsin's 1800s-era Criminal Abolition Ban. Sep 1 2022.

[4] Beck, Molly. Marley, Patrick. May 3, 2022 Here are Wisconsin's abolition laws and how they would be affected by Roe v. Wade decisions Sep 2, 2022

[5]Casey Even. August 18, 2022. WPR Voters in some Wiscsoin cites will weigh in on abortion ban in fall election referendums. August 29, 2022

[6] Schorsch, Kristen. NPR. August 11, 2022. Abortion is legal in Illinois. In Wisconsin, it's nearly banned. So clinics teamed up  8/29/2022.

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

National Law Empowering ICE in Wisconsin Counties

By Diego Sanchez, Lawrence University Class 2023

August 25, 2022

Immigration is a controversial issue in America as many federal and state changes make it difficult to keep track of all the various differences. Immigration Law is one of the most complex laws to interpret due to frequent changes to immigration law. It is not about visas, green cards, and immigration status; the federal government solely regulates these areas. What does change from federal to state is what the state determines as proper employment standards, education access, licensing, and state benefits[1]. Federal agents control and enforce immigration laws, but state and local law enforcement do not enforce immigration laws. A federal law that imposes federal overreach that has come under recent scrutiny due to the change in administration is 287(g).

The law section 287 g gives states and local law enforcement power to enforce federal immigration laws and remove illegal immigrants[2]. This program, supervised by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is meant to keep the community safe from illegal immigrants. It streamlines the process of ICE enforcement to now add local and state authorities who have expanded power. This is a voluntary program with training from ICE, and many law enforcement programs have stated positive feedback[3]. However, there are many critics of ICE in general along with this program. This may be ICE overreach as many police accessing their county are not allowed to enforce federal immigration law. Still, certain areas are causing confusion and hesitation for immigrants if they need the police.

The law by the US immigration and customs enforcement will allow local police enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws[2]. New protests have appeared protesting the federal law that puts even more pressure on illegal immigrants. The reason for the current push to overturn this rule is the conservative supreme court and other legislation that will make immigration a more title-regulated issue. The law passed in 2017 has seen ICE power expanded to include some state counties when they have already been pushed to get rid of ICE which some have described ICE as being inhuman [4]. While protection and power enforcement have been reasons to keep the law in place, the areas in which the law has been implemented with unilateral authority from the federal government and only consulting the police for each of the counties and the counties as a whole undermine individual communities. The Biden administration has taken a hardline stance against immigration. It has continued many immigration laws from the Trump administration along with decisions to enforce the so-called "Stay in Mexico" policy upheld by the supreme court in a 5-4 decision [5]. This decision and others have aided in the new law passing as there is enforcement of federal Immigration Law. The main issue that the law has is that it deputizes local officers and gives them the power to enforce federal immigration laws but does not consider state laws.

Now, this law may be seen as the federal government having overreach on the issue of immigration and challenging the sovereignty of each state as the federal government comes in and enforces federal bypassing and conflicting with the state.

Supporters of the bill cite the program's success across the county, and the program has detained 21 violent offenders and nearly 1,000 undocumented immigrants for various other offenses. Still, it is unclear if the bill helped or if this arrest happened alone.

This action puts many illegal immigrants at risk of being deported. This may be a risk to public safety because illegal immigrants may not be willing to report crimes to law enforcement for fear of being deported. Then more crimes will be unreported, resulting in more corruption among and around immigrants for knowing that they can not call the police because the police can enforce immigration laws. The process of stopping this law is not hard; Biden could put an order to end the program [6]. The law is only implemented in 8 Wisconsin counties out of 72, further leading to confusion from the citizens as to what counties will be enforcing these laws[2]. This law is limited in its scope, so it is not clear if the law has made communities safer or whether this is merely more power and enforcement for ICE agents. Immigrant activists from Wisconsin and other states have held Rallies to protest the federal law. This also ends the "terror" that ICE causes to immigrant communities. The protestors used civil disobedience and cited that President Biden was elected by the people and should listen to the protestors[7]. Also that this needlessly endangers many immigrants and is meant to create safety but has the possibility of creating unreported crimes.

Current courts in Wisconsin have taken a hardline stance against immigration.

These efforts are all likely only meant to regulate immigration law but do violate Wisconsin laws. Suppose evidence is shown that it is making communities safer. In that case, it is a law that has precedence to stay. Still, without proper evidence, it is hard to see the value in the law, especially with all the public concern surrounding the law.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Find Law State Immigration Laws 8/22/2022.

[2] U.S. Immigraiton and Customs Enforcement. Delegation of Immigration authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act 8/3/2022

[3] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Laws and Policy. 8/14/2022.   

[4] Lind, Dara. Vox Jun 28 2018 " HYPERLINK "https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/19/17116980/ice-abolish-immigration-arrest-deport"Abolish ICE, HYPERLINK "https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/19/17116980/ice-abolish-immigration-arrest-deport"" HYPERLINK "https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/19/17116980/ice-abolish-immigration-arrest-deport" explained. 8/16/2022

[5] Holmes Isiah 26th 2022 Immigrant activists hold action outside Homeland Security secretary's home 

[6] American Civil Liberties Union. Know Your Rights Immigrants' Rights 8/22/2022

[7] Kirby Hannah. May 1 2022 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Thousands of people marched in Milwaukee to demand Biden pass protections for immigrants workers, their families  

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

Wisconsin’s Disability Voting Access

By Diego Sanchez, Lawrence University Class 2023

August 15, 2022

The recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision endangers voters' rights, precisely Wisconsin voters with disabilities. The Wisconsin Supreme court, in a 4-3 decision, found that ballot drop-off boxes are illegal under state laws in July of 2022 [1]. This is to strengthen the Wisconsin voting system and integrity but may have unforeseen consequences as disability groups have been fighting against the decision because the decision violates the ADA. No one but the voter can return the ballot, meaning in the past, people with disabilities used someone else to deliver their ballot but now cannot because it is illegal. It is essential to note that there are no formal decisions on people with disabilities using someone else to place their ballot. Still, the way the decisions are framed is within the reasonable assumption that this act would be illegal. Voters can now return their ballots in one of two ways: in-person voting or by absentee ballot by sending the ballot through the mail or by returning the ballot to the local municipal clerk [2].

The main issue is ballet return boxes which have been under scrutiny, which is why the Supreme Court believed that allowing another person to drop off a ballot would jeopardize the integrity of the Wisconsin election [2]. The court went as far as to ban ballot drop-off boxes completely and made no consideration for alternatives which is why this lawsuit has appeared with the upcoming 2022 midterm election, which may disenfranchise those with disabilities. This ruling had the consequences of affecting those with disabilities and then is this violating federal law regarding the ADA.  

The ADA began in the late 80s and was meant to address structural problems by making society more accessible to those with disabilities. Establishing the right that all people have accessible spaces and that all places must accept each person and not accommodate those persons would be discrimination and in violation of the ADA [3]. In this case, with the new ruling in Wisconsin, a section of voters may be unable to participate in a public activity due to the lack of accommodations. In the lawsuit Carey v Wisconsin, there is documentation of the inability of those with disabilities to Vote[4]. Also, there has been outrage from multiple federal disability groups saying that there are violations of ADA. The lawsuit filed has also shown considerable mistrust from the community [5]. The ADA clearly states that people with disabilities are considered a class and entitled to basic civil rights protections(). The right to vote is a fundamental civil right, and not allowing those with disabilities to vote would be discrimination. The lawsuit based on the ADA and other precedents, including civil rights, would mean that the Wisconsin group's lawsuit has a solid case to win in legal preceding. The group of Wisconsin voters who are disabled that are filing a lawsuit and are represented by Law Forward has filed a federal lawsuit against the state of WIsconsin[6]. The ADA is established by federal law, and as stated before, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin did not make any decision regarding disability exceptions. A decision in the lawsuit would set a precedent for the rest of the state.

In the court documents, there are documented instances of people unable to vote without the use of ballot-return assistance, causing fewer people to have the ability to vote [4]. The main concern with enacting these new laws is that election integrity is all meant to aid in securing voting regulations. Voters' rights have been put into question due to recent conversations surrounding the 2020 US election controversy. These court decisions were split, with the conservative majority voting in favor of tighter regulations [1].

The issue then becomes how Wisconsin better regulates the voting system or at least how can they better allow for those with disabilities to gain access to voting by using assistance; as evident by the Wisconsin Supreme Court explaining they did not want to address the issue of exception to those with a disability is essential to note that the Wisconsin supreme court did not make an official decision on whether having an absentee ballot dropped off by someone else for a person with disabilities is allowed(). Republicans have criticized the practice of ballot drop-off. This specific practice has many disability rights groups furious over the decisions as some may not be physically able to deliver their ballot to a mailbox or travel to a local clerk's office [2]. The lawsuit was inevitable as the supreme court did not make a decision, and it is a gray area. Can voters with disabilities have alternatives that this court case will decide[7].

Disability rights groups will continue to assist in the lawsuit with the several disabled individuals in the lawsuit. Even with concerns about election security, many say these measures help secure election integrity. The issue central to the debate is that there is no alternative way for people to drop off their ballots. It is still yet to be determined if there are alternative ways for those voters with disabilities to vote in alternative ways which could assist those who already may have difficulties in everyday life and are trying to fulfill their civic duties.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Schouten Fredreka CNN7/8/22 Wisconsin Supreme Court prohibits use of most ballot drop boxes. 8/9/22.

[2]Redman, Henry. Wisconsin Examiner. 7/27/22. Four Disabled Wisconsin voters sue to protect their voting rights after Supreme Court Absentee ballot decision 7/31/22 

[3] Arlene Mayerson 1992 Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund The History of Americans with Disabilities Act. 8/8/22.

[4] Carey v Wisconsin Elections Commission.  8/4/22. 

[5] The United States Department of Justice.6/19/09. The Effect of the Voting Rights Act. 8/10/22.

[6] Redman, Henry.  Wisconsin Examiner. 7/29/22. Wisconsinites with disabilities push for voting rights. 8/1/22

[7]Wojcik, Marisa. PBS Wisconsin. 8/5/22.  Voters with disabilities fight to cast ballots in Wisconsin 8/9/22.

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

WIsconsin’s Asylum And Imgration Issues

By Diego Sanchez, Lawrence University Class 2023

July 30, 2022

In and around the United States, there has been much debate over immigration. Immigration has been at the forefront of many political debates, especially with migrants arriving from Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, as well as ongoing concern over current immigration from the Mexico and US border, which has been a debate for years [1]. Law experts consider migration a very complex issue in and around the United States due to conflicting state and federal laws. Current efforts to reform immigration have come to the forefront for the republican party. Wisconsin has been one of the states that have seen many candidates in the race for governor and others in the state legislature begin to look for new ways to change the immigration rules. Many people have posed a hard stance on immigration to make it more difficult for illegal immigrants.

Immigration has been a tightly contested issue in Wisconsin despite it not having a  large immigrant population, with Wisconsin having an immigrant population of 5 % [2]. Wisconsin ranks 35 in the country for the most immigrant population. Despite this, there is still a great concern about more immigrants coming. Because of this, new regulations are in the works to combat potential influx. These new measures have been touted in safety guidelines, but these ultimately may not help public safety. The population of asylum seekers could potentially grow even further with more asylum seekers from recent conflicts in Ukraine and refugees from Afghanistan and other parts of the world.

Many immigrants claim asylum; this has been one of the central issues that many people have sought to change the laws regarding Asylum seekers. Asylum seekers coming from countries with persecution, natural disasters, and/or conflict issues [3]. Asylum seekers to the US over the past decade have risen by 20% because of this and more mounting global conflicts. Immigrants seeking Asylum can be complex as it is not only a local issue or it can be a federal issue.

The issue is that while Wisocisn receives the asylums, the US federal government enforces where the immigrants live. The US government also has numerous stipulations for asylum seekers to obtain citizenship and remain a citizen. One of the biggest is that felony charges can jeopardize citizenship, especially in Wisconsin, which has very strict laws that require a clean criminal record. The asylum application process is a long and arduous one, asylum seekers must prove that they have already suffered persecution because of race, religion, or political opinion [3]. Specifically, in Wisconsin asylum applications must be submitted within a year of arrival, or the individual could face depreciation [4]. This application process can be even more complex due to individuals also needing to find a home, job, and child care. Some government aid exists to aid asylum seekers but is limited [3]. The issue is further complicated with the need for an attorney for Asylum seekers. Many organizations and law firms have pro bono work but primarily only in large cities. Efforts to help increase the number of attorneys have been made by the Law Center in Madison, which has begun to train lawyers on Asylum seekers [3].

More money and time would need to be put towards lawyers' training to help asylum seekers with the arguis process, but because of statements from both the senate and republican governor and with seemingly no willingness to contribute to improving the process, it  will likely be even harder, and with fewer resources would make the asylum seeking process even more challenging. The sentiment from voters in Wisconsin believe that they do need immigrant labor to help the economy; much of the sentiment comes from rural farmers [5]. In spite of this, there are republican candidates for governor as well as state senators that believe that it is still an issue that must be a tighter, more controlled process. Governor Evers has fought for reform but acknowledges that without proper support from the Wiscosin state legislature little can be done[6]. Governor Evers is in support of morre immigrant rights but it has been shown that many politicians in Wisconsin do not support ease of imgraition and immigrant rights and want to make the process even harder.

New legislation to reform the asylum process is not going to pass the state legislature even with support from the governor. Sentiment from the republican candidates means that an already complex system of asylum-seeking will only become more complex in efforts to keep immigrants out of Wisconsin. This is going against many Wisconsin voters who believe in immigration. While popular sentiments show that immigrants are welcome, the government of Wisconsin seems to not want easy of imgratiom for illegal immigrants and Asylum seekers.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Deliver, Drew. Pew Research Center. March 22 2022 After a Month of war, Ukraine refugee crisis ranks among the world’s worst in recent history. July 25th 2022.

[2] American Imigraiton Council August 6th 2020 Immigrants in Wisconsin. July 21st 2022.

[3] Rao, Thomas Suni. State Bar Of Wisconsin February 07, 2018 Grounds for Asylum: Resources for Immigration Attorneys. June 22 2022.

[4]. Sullivan, Erin June 22 2022 Time's running out for Afghans seeking asylum and Wisconsin lawyers step up. June 21st 2022.

[5] Conniff , Ruth. Wisconsin Examiner. July 21 2022 Tim Michels’ trouble exposes Republican hypocrisy on immigration.  July 21 2022.

[6 ]Wispolitics.  Voces De La Frontera: Gov. Evers, farmers joined immigrant essential workers as they continue historic 9-day march to demand citizenship for all. July 27 2022.

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

Wisconsin Gun Legislation Movement

By Diego Sanchez, Lawrence University Class 2023

July 17, 2022

In recent years there has been a push for and against gun rights in the United States. Gun rights have been contested and have been seriously debated for the past decade. Both pro and anti-gun legislation have been proposed in many states; one example is Wisconsin. However, there has been more of a push for loosening gun restrictions in recent years. Other states have made strong pushes for pro-gun legislation [1].   The republican led state legislature has made it easy for pro-gun legislation to pass; however, with a Democratic governor, it has not been as easy for the Wisconsin state senate to pass pro-gun legislation.

In recent years, Wisconsin ranked 23rd in the strength of gun laws and has seen loosened gun legislation by decreasing background checks and not passing legislation to create red flag laws that have lowered Wisconsin gun regulations [2]. It is important to note that Wisconsin is an open carry state but must be able to follow both state and federal laws. Concealed carry is allowed for non-state residents but only if they are able to obtain proper permits within the state of Wisconsin and the state that the said person is coming from has an agreement with Wisconsin[3].

Assembly bill 495 is meant to expand the concealed carry ability. The bill introduced in early January would expand gun rights and where concealed carry weapons can be permitted. Citing the rise in violent crimes, prompting them to expand concealed carry laws. The law would allow concealed carry weapons on school grounds, not in the buildings but specifically for areas outside the school, such as parking lots[4]. The logic is that people with concealed carry guns would be better prepared to defend against an attack. Governor Evers disagrees with the bill and cites that this bill does not address any causes of gun violence and uses precedence to try and reinforce the argument. Instead, Governor Evers would want more common-sense gun laws instead of this law that might work in protecting public safety.

Assembly Bill 518 would allow Wisconsin to recognize concealed carry permits that are valid in other states. In addition, this bill would allow for fewer unnecessary regulations by allowing other states concealed carry laws to stand when entering Wisconsin. The main reason Governor Evers cites for vetoing this bill is more control over the type of permits for concealed carry weapons in other states that do not meet Wisconsin standards. Evers states that this risks undermining the state's rules and putting the public in danger. The danger would come from having more guns in Wisconsin from people that are not vetted in the proper way by Wisocisn law[4]. The arguments for and against this bill address the problem of what is creating safety and what is not. Gun activists cite more guns would deter and prevent violence, while anti-gun activities cite more guns as bringing more violence. Both bills were vetoed by the Governor of Wisconsin, Tony Evers. Who is already concerned with loose gun laws as a reason to veto the bills but also that these bills do not enact any safety legislation.

In Spite of the safety concerns, Wisconsin is not very high in terms of gun violence rates compared to other states with slightly more relaxed gun laws, such as Michigan and Indiana, with rank 24th and 25th, respectively.[2] Despite slightly more relaxed gun laws, they have much higher rates of gun violence. On the other hand, there is no clear pattern of stricter gun laws preventing violence, as many states with high gun safety laws have worse gun violence rates. So the debate is not definitive in terms of whether or not gun laws actually prevent violence.

Due to this new pro-gun legislation and the future loss of restriction, new movements have appeared, such as the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort (WAVE), in order to combat and pass new legislation to try and counterattack losing regulations. WAVE itself has actually prevented the NRA from gaining looser regulations[5]. As shown before, the NRA has pushed for the previous legislation with groups like WAVE working against pro-gun legislation; it has created a debate in Wisconsin on how to handle gun legislation.

Current efforts from the Wisconsin state senate are further pushing for more legislation to protect gun rights. More bills, such as assembly bill 293, were meant to give access to firearms to those who have committed minor offenses [6]. This and other bills attempting to be passed showed that Wisconsin is moving to have less restrictive gun laws. The struggle against the state senate and the governor over gun laws will continue for quite some time this coming as a nationwide debate over gun laws persists.

While both sides have their reasons for and against guns, they are all underlined with concerns for public safety; the bill's intentions or at least stated intentions are to improve public safety, while Evers disagrees with this notion that either bill will improve public safety. In contrast, Evers raises concerns that having more firearms would cause more gun violence. However, according to the data, it is unlikely that safety, whether the bills are passed or not, would be affected at all.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Franklin, Charles. State Gun Laws and Public Opinion. Marquette University School of Law. June 23 2021 Retrived July 10 2022.

[2 ] EveryTown Gun laws in Wisconsin. HYPERLINK "https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/state/wisconsin/?_gl=1%2Ar2c2pm%2A_ga%2AOTY5NzI1MjkxLjE2NTc1NTk5NTA.%2A_ga_LT0FWV3EK3%2AMTY1NzU1OTk1MC4xLjAuMTY1NzU1OTk1MC4w" HYPERLINK "https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/state/wisconsin/?_gl=1%2Ar2c2pm%2A_ga%2AOTY5NzI1MjkxLjE2NTc1NTk5NTA.%2A_ga_LT0FWV3EK3%2AMTY1NzU1OTk1MC4xLjAuMTY1NzU1OTk1MC4w" January 19 2022 Retrieved July 10th 2022

[3]  United States Concealed Carry Association. Wisconsin Concealed Carry Reciprocity  Map HYPERLINK "https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/wi-gun-laws/#:~:text=Open%20carry%20is%20legal%20for,a%20state%20that%20Wisconsin%20honors" HYPERLINK "https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/wi-gun-laws/#:~:text=Open%20carry%20is%20legal%20for,a%20state%20that%20Wisconsin%20honors" HYPERLINK "https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/wi-gun-laws/#:~:text=Open%20carry%20is%20legal%20for,a%20state%20that%20Wisconsin%20honors"& HYPERLINK "https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/wi-gun-laws/#:~:text=Open%20carry%20is%20legal%20for,a%20state%20that%20Wisconsin%20honors" HYPERLINK "https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/wi-gun-laws/#:~:text=Open%20carry%20is%20legal%20for,a%20state%20that%20Wisconsin%20honors" HYPERLINK "https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/wi-gun-laws/#:~:text=Open%20carry%20is%20legal%20for,a%20state%20that%20Wisconsin%20honors" Gun Laws. April 19 2021 Retrieved July 12th 2022.

[4]NRA-ILA Wisconsin: Governor Evers vetoes two pro gun bills. April 8th 2022 Retrieved  July 7th 2022

[5] Christofferson, Bill. Wisconsin's leading gun control advocate. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. June 16th 2022 retrieved July 11th 2022

[6] Marley Patrick and Karnopp Hope, HYPERLINK "https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/23/wisconsin-senate-poised-enact-2nd-amendment-sanctuary-legislation-second-guns/5309767001/" HYPERLINK "https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/23/wisconsin-senate-poised-enact-2nd-amendment-sanctuary-legislation-second-guns/5309767001/" HYPERLINK "https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/23/wisconsin-senate-poised-enact-2nd-amendment-sanctuary-legislation-second-guns/5309767001/"Wisconsin Senate passes 'Second Amendment sanctuary’ legislation limiting federal gun laws. United States Concealed Carry Association. June 23 2021  Retrieved July 10 2022

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

Reading Education Reform in Wisconsin

By Diego Sanchez, Lawrence University Class 2023

June 29, 2022

New education reforms have been sweeping the nation. The issues of isolation due to the Covid-19 pandemic and public school programs seeing a lack of reading literacy programs have prompted several states to change or overhaul the way they teach students how to read. In Wisconsin, new legislation outlines ways to fix and improve the education system, specifically in terms of early childhood literacy. The main benefit of this bill is to benefit those who are at risk of not meeting literacy standards by reforming the way schools assess reading standards.

Over 16 states have recently passed new legislation into law, ensuring that there is an overhaul in the way students are taught and how to identify those who may not become proficient readers [1]. Wisconsin has seen a dropping literacy level in African-American students promoting change. Assembly bill 446 is meant to aid those. Legislators have indicated that over recent years there has been a significant drop in reading literacy; Wisconsin has gone from 5th to 26th, a significant drop in childhood literacy over the last decade [2]. The reason for such a drop varies; budget cuts have played a major role. Pandemic has also diminished funding on a state and federal level for education [3]. There is a renowned sentiment to reduce standards for potentially vulnerable populations.

Current laws require schools in Wisconsin to do annual assessments. Each student receives an interventional reading or remedial reading if the schools identify them as at risk. The current law is not clear on the definition of high risk; hence the definition of high risk is subject to each school. The new bill would allow for three screenings to define at-risk pupils, outline a plan for that specific at-risk pupil and finally require specific guidelines for intervention between each assessment. Allowing for parents to also be properly notified. There would be two assessments at the beginning and end of the school year specified as the new measure ensures that multiple at risk students with dyslexia have adequate access to reading materials.

The benefit of the bill will be that it will create new standards to help mitigate the gap in reading difficulty for underprivileged students. Students of color also would benefit due to the much lower reading scores of their peers. Critics of the bill believe that the bill creates new standards without any funding for these new standards creating an undue burden on schools by requiring them to take days out of the school year to hire and or train personnel for those students considered at risk [4]. Since no funding is tied, enforcement and compliance would not be easy to manage as already underfunded schools may not follow compliance. The new bill, Assembly Bill 446, looks to be passed into law and would mainly help those who are at risk; for example, the bill uses an example of dyslexia as students who would be considered at risk as identification and interventions would be brought in quicker [3]. This is a possible solution to counteract declining literacy rates. However, as many critics pointed out, there is no additional funding for this program, so this law may not have as much impact as intended(5). Citing specific mandates may not go abided by because schools do not have the resources to train and hire new staff for new reading assignments. This legislation was passed into law by the state senate.  

The bill was vetoed by Governor Evers, citing, as many other critics did, that the bill did not have the appropriate funding. In spite of the declining reading scores of Wisconsin children (6). Governor Evers does give doubt as to the effectiveness of the new tests and doubt about reforming education on a high level. Funding will be a major issue and will continue to cause challenges in education reform. Evers, over his term in office as Governor, has unsuccessfully tried to push for an increase in the education budget(2). It is important to note that representative Kitchens (one of the representatives who brought the bill to the legislator) does say that there is funding available but does not give specifics about where the funding is available from and how to properly implement these programs.

Even in spite of the Governor's veto, Representative Kitchens, in 2022, the bill was reintroduced, and once again, it was vetoed. Kitchen cited Wisconsin declining literacy standards. It remains to be seen what will happen next to improve reading literacy in children in Wisconsin as declining rates and the urgency from both democrats and republicans prove that this will be an important issue for them to try to craft a solution.  

______________________________________________________________

[1] Samuels, Cristina, A. States’ urgent push to overhaul reading instruction.  The Hechinger Report.  November 10 2021 Retrieved Jun 21 2022

[2] Coniff, Ruth. Senate passes reading readiness bill after debate on education decline  October 26th 2021. Retrieved June 23 2022

[3] Beck, Molly. Wisconsin legislation would triple number of literacy tests for young students in effort to identify at-risk readers. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Oct 25 2021 Retrieved Jun 21 2022

[4] Wiscosin legislature https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/related/proposals/ab446   2021-2022 legislature assembly bill 446 October 21 2021 Retreived Jun 21 2022

[5] Fitzgerald, Debra. Evers Vetoes Reading Readiness Bill. Door County Pulse. November 10 2021.  Retrieved Jun 27 2022.

[6] Wispolitics. Rep. Kitchens: Reading bill vetoed again by Governor Retrieved Jun 27 2022

Photo Credit: Karl Thomas Moore

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

Hawkins V. McGee (1929)

By Alex Pagel, Mitchell Hamline School of Law Class of 2024  

September 12, 2021 

As a first-year law student, you will inevitably take a course dedicated to the study of contracts. Certainly, the course will mandate that you read scores of cases which have impacted contract law over hundreds of years. However, few contract law cases have been as impactful in shaping contracts as we know them today as Hawkins v. McGee. The now infamous “Hairy Hand” case has been as influential as it is notorious in the study of contract law.

The landmark ruling in this case was made by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in 1929. As a result of touching an electrical wire, plaintiff George A. Hawkins had scars on his hand. To remedy his injury, Hawkins sought medical treatment from defendant and medical doctor Edward McGee. McGee guaranteed Hawkins that he would be able to fully repair his damages such that he would once again have a “one hundred percent good hand”. However, after conducting the procedure, a thick patch of hair began growing on Hawkins’s hand.[1] Clearly, McGree did not follow through with his guarantee.

Following the imperfect procedure, Hawkins sued McGee for breach of contract. Not only did his hand grow thick hair, but the recovery time from the procedure was also longer than promised. In his lawsuit, Hawkins alleged that McGee had, in making his promise, provided Hawkins a warranty that his hand would be perfect.[2] The court of first instance in the Hawkins case ruled that McGee was required to pay damages to Hawkins not only for the pain and suffering he received during the operation, but also for tangible negative side effects he received from the surgery (hair growth).[3]

Finding this ruling unjust, McGee appealed the court’s decision. McGee appealed on account that he should not be required to compensate Hawkins for the pain and suffering he endured during the surgery in addition to having to compensate him for the imperfect hand he received. The New Hampshire Supreme Court accepted his appeal and ordered a new trial be had.

After conducting the new trial the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that McGee was not required to compensate Hawkins for the additional pain and suffering he received from the surgery. The Court instead found that the amount in damages the plaintiff was entitled to as a result of Hawkins’s breach of contract was the difference in value between what Hawkins would have received had the surgeon given him the perfect hand he was guaranteed and the value of the hand that the plaintiff actually received.[4] Thus, Hawkins was not entitled to damages for additional pain and suffering because, as the Court reasoned, he would have endured said discomforts even if the procedure went perfectly. In other words, Hawkins was only entitled to “expectation damages”, which equal the difference in value of the hand he received and the hand he was promised.

This ruling, which essentially defined what expectation damages are, has had a lasting effect on contract law in America. As was granted in the Hawkins case, expectation damages are damages awarded when a party breaches a contract that are intended to put the injured party in as good a position as if the breaching party entirely fulfilled its duties as they were outlined in the contract.[5] Every law school in the country teaches students about expectation damages and many, if not all of them, do so via the Hawkins case. In addition to being consistently utilized in the classroom, the “Hairy Hand” case has also been mentioned in subsequent court cases and films. While the parties and judges involved in Hawkins v. McGee may not have realized that it would be so influential while the case was being tried, it certainly has become one of high notoriety across our country.

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://blog.cambridgecoaching.com/6-essential-law-school-cases-a-1ls-guide

[2] https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-hawkins-v-mcgee-862747383

[3] https://lawaspect.com/hawkins-v-mcgee-case-brief/

[4] https://vellalundlaw.com/article/4/hawkins-v-mcgee-the-hairy-hand-case

[5] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/expectation_damages

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

Analysis of the Current Legal Market

By Alex Pagel,  Mitchell Hamline School of Law Class of 2024  

August 27, 2020 

Like other job markets, the sector of legal employment has changed greatly in recent years. Effects of an aging population, the pandemic, and economic swings have caused certain geographic regions and practice areas to suffer while others were somewhat more fortunate. Some firms have thrived through these changing times while others have been forced to consider reducing their number of employees or even to go out of business. Given the rapidly changing nature of the contemporary business, it is certainly a great time to take a look at the legal market.

Firstly, a general overview of the occupational outlook for lawyers is necessary. According to the most recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics findings, the median annual pay of all lawyers in our country is $126,930, or roughly $61.03 per hour. As of 2019, there were 813,900 attorneys spread across the country. The Bureau predicts that over the next decade, this figure will increase by over 32,000, rounding out to an estimated job growth of 4% by 2029.[1]

However, state level data suggests that some jurisdictions have many more attorneys than others and that their compensation varies greatly. Based on data provided by Forbes less than two years ago, attorneys in New York and California find themselves with the heaviest pockets, earning average salaries of $167,110 and $171,550, respectively. Receiving the lowest levels of compensation were lawyers in Montana, Mississippi, West Virginia, Arkansas and Idaho, all with annual salaries averaging at less than $100,000.[2] If we break down the data even further, we can get a better idea of which cities are shelling out the most cash for legal counselors. Data produced earlier this year tells us that attorneys in San Jose, San Francisco and the Washington D.C. areas are making the most; each city having an average annual lawyer salary north of $170,000.[3] Clearly, the compensation an attorney is paid will greatly vary based on where he or she is practicing.

Another interesting statistic for aspiring attorneys and current practitioners is a city’s location quotient. This number is representative of the demand respective cities have for legal services and can be helpful for anyone searching for a job as a lawyer within them. With 1.00 being considered “average”, cities with a larger location quotient score than 1.00 are considered to have a greater than average demand for legal services. According to a 2021 study, the 4 cities with the highest location quotient scores were San Francisco (2.12), New York (2.31), Tallahassee (2.91) and Washington D.C. (3.90). Some noteworthy other cities that the study identified as having relatively low scores were Nashville (0.72), Indianapolis (0.82), San Antonio (0.77) and and Cincinnati (0.85).[4] Evidently, even large American cities range widely in their needs for legal services.

Another important factor to consider in addition to geography is practice type. Generally speaking, the different types of lawyers are not paid equally; the laws of supply and demand continue to dictate that certain types of lawyers make more money than others. Another study conducted this year has determined the average wages of attorneys in these different groups and has concluded with some interesting findings. Currently, medical lawyers are averaging the highest annual pay ($150,881), followed by intellectual property attorneys ($140,972) and trial attorneys ($101,086).[5] On the low end of the income scale of all attorneys are those working as public defenders and immigration attorneys, which earn annual figures far closer to the $60,000 - $70,000 range.[6] Clearly, the range of compensation earned by different lawyers is vast.

Looking into the future, it appears that some areas of legal practice may experience significant growths in demand while others may see declines. And while it is impossible to make predictions with certain accuracy regarding this manner, the available data regarding our nation’s social, economic, and political statuses allow us to make some well-educated guesses. Given the effects of the recent pandemic, America’s currently aging population and the swift advances our world is seeing with technology, it seems likely that lawyers working in cybersecurity, elder law, energy law, IP law, and health law will see the largest spikes in demand.[7] Conversely, advances in technology and a 35% rise in law school applicants this year suggest that competition for legal jobs across the board may get more intense than in recent years.[8]

           As the assortment of data makes clear, lawyers in different locations and different types of practice receive greatly varying levels of demand and compensation. It appears that the major markets of New York, California and Washington D.C. have demand for attorneys at very high levels relative to other markets and are willing to pay greatly for their services. Additionally, attorneys working in the medical and intellectual property fields seem to haul in the most income while lawyer jobs which are publicly funded receive the least. As we dive deeper into the future, demand for certain types of lawyers will inevitably change and the locations where they are wanted will, at least somewhat, too. Undoubtedly, aspiring attorneys and those currently in practice will watch these upcoming trends and changes with great interest.

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/lawyers.htm

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2019/11/18/lawyer-salary-state/?sh=319d709b79a1

[3] https://www.usawage.com/high-pay/cities-lawyers.php

[4] https://www.valuepenguin.com/2015/05/best-cities-lawyers

[5] https://www.biglawinvestor.com/highest-paid-lawyers/

[6] https://www.thebalancecareers.com/lowest-paid-legal-jobs-2164287

[7] https://www.clio.com/blog/emerging-areas-law/

[8] https://www.forbes.com/sites/markcohen1/2021/03/31/a-boom-year-for-law-schools-but-what-about-students-legal-consumers-and-society/?sh=386a49377aba

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

Briefing Cases: The IRAC Method

By Alex Pagel,  Mitchell Hamline School of Law Class of 2024  

August 24, 2020 

In undergraduate courses, professors assign readings, give presentations and provide information for university students to retain in various ways. As many former college students know, it isn’t uncommon to attempt to learn the relevant information via pre-exam cramming with an abundance of caffeine in the late hours of the evening. And while law students will consume their own copious amounts of caffeine and will likely have to make up for the necessary studying they did not do at the appropriate time in advance of their exams, they tend to learn their courses’ lessons via a much different method. This method is referred to by the acronym IRAC and is applied by law students in law schools across the country when they make case briefs for each of the respective cases they study. While the birthdate of the method is unclear, legal literature tells us that it has been used since at least 1961.[1]

The “I” in IRAC stands for issue. The issue, or issues, in any case are the legal question(s) that, when answered, determine the result of the case. When a student writes his or her brief, the issue(s) will be written as individual and specific, rather than general, question(s). For example, a specific issue in a case may be written as “Is there an agency relationship if there was no compensation paid?; simply writing “Will the plaintiff win?” would be far too broad and fail to accurately depict the legal issue in the case.[2] Thankfully for students, most cases only entail one legal issue. However, cases will occasionally have multiple such issues, which will typically require the case to be more thoroughly analysed as more issues require more legal reasoning and rulings.

After determining the issue(s), the rule (“R”) in the case will be ascertained by the student. The rule section of an IRAC case brief is where the legal rules, or laws, relevant to the previously identified issues in the case, are explicitly stated. Completing this section will likely require the researching of past Supreme Court rulings and those made by courts in the jurisdiction of the case at hand, as well as the analysis of relevant laws of said jurisdiction. An example of a well constructed rule section for a hypothetical case is as follows: “In order for an offer to be accepted, State Law Z requires that there be an offer and an acceptance of that offer with no changes in terms; any changes would negate the acceptance and create a counter offer. Case X clearly states that in oral contracts the context of the offer or acceptance should not be ignored. The reasoning used by the Court was that "… inadvertent statements, that do not reflect the actors intent, should not bind that actor in a contract.”[3] The length of an individual rule section in an IRAC case brief will be determined based on the complexity and number of laws and rulings considered in the case. This section can be rather short and straightforward, but can also be lengthy and complex.

The third portion of the IRAC brief (“A”) is dedicated to application. The application portion of the IRAC case brief tends to be the longest individual section of it and generally is considered the most important. Here, the law student will write about how the court in the case on hand applied the relevant rules/laws to the facts of the case and how it reached its decision. A particularly digestible example of what may be included in this section is as follows: suppose an individual was injured by a negligent driver 5 years ago and is just now bringing suit against the driver. However, the court has determined that the statute of limitations for such a case (the length of time after a legal infringement has occurred in which it can be heard by a court) is only 3 years. Because of this, the court ruled that the legal claim against the driver could not be heard. This explanation, or application, of the rule, is what would be detailed in the application section.[4]

In the final section, the “conclusion” portion of the IRAC brief, the law student will quickly summarize the final outcome of the case. This will usually be accomplished in just one or two sentences, as the previous sections have already sufficiently analyzed the legal reasoning and analysis presented in the case. For example, one may write in the conclusion section of their brief that “the court ruled that the business did not owe the assaulted customer a duty to

provide security patrols”.[5] A simple statement such as that will confirm how the case concluded and summarize the entirety of the suit.

As law students are required to read hundreds of cases each semester, an effective note taking system is a necessity to retain the important information to be gathered from each of them. Thankfully, the IRAC method has proven to do just that. Intended to provide a useful way of organizing relevant information, the IRAC method helps break down complex terminology, fact patterns, and legal analysis from countless pages into easily digestible blocks of text.[6] After having made the brief, the law student will not only have a thorough understanding of the case, but have also made him or herself an effective study tool when time comes for exam prep. While reading the case diligently and creating a detailed IRAC brief will take lots of time on the front end, it will save the student numerous hours on the back end, when tensions are high and palms are sweaty. Sure, the method may be repetitive and boring. But, there clearly are numerous robust reasons why it is so commonly used in law schools today.

______________________________________________________________

California State University, Northridge. (n.d.). Using the IRAC Structure In Writing Exam Answers. Retrieved July 31, 2021, from https://www.csun.edu/sites/default/files/IRAC%20ANALYSIS_Saunders.pdf

Law School Survival. (n.d.). The IRAC - Defined | Law School Survival. Retrieved July 31, 2021, from https://www.lawschoolsurvival.org/content/irac-defined

Rasmussen University. (n.d.). What is the IRAC Method? Retrieved July 31, 2021, from https://rasmussen.libanswers.com/faq/263798

Stockmeyer, N. O. (2021, April 7). Legal reasoning? It’s all about IRAC. Retrieved July 31, 2021, from https://abaforlawstudents.com/2021/03/09/legal-reasoning-its-all-about-irac/#:%7E:text=Where%20did%20IRAC%20originate%3F,legal%20literature%20dates%20to%201961.

Study.com. (n.d.). The IRAC Method. Retrieved July 31, 2021, from https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-irac-method.html

Image: https://info.cooley.edu/blog/its-all-about-irac

[1] https://abaforlawstudents.com/2021/03/09/legal-reasoning-its-all-about-irac/#:~:text=Where%20did%20IRAC%20originate%3F,legal%20literature%20dates%20to%201961.

[2] https://www.csun.edu/sites/default/files/IRAC%20ANALYSIS_Saunders.pdf

[3] https://www.lawschoolsurvival.org/content/irac-defined

[4] https://rasmussen.libanswers.com/faq/263798

[5] http://www.csun.edu/~kkd61657/brief.pdf

[6] https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-irac-method.html

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

Palsgraf V. Long Island Railroad Co. and the Evolution of Tort Law

By Alex Pagel,  Mitchell Hamline School of Law Class of 2024  

July 27, 2020 

Our nation’s system of jurisprudence has largely been shaped by landmark case rulings of the past. Many remember the head turning decisions handed down in notorious cases such as Roe v. Wade, United States v. Nixon and Brown v. Board of Education, among others. However, there are many case rulings which had similar impacts on our justice system which have garnered far less attention. Some might, but most won’t, remember the meaningful decisions made in lesser known cases among the general public such as Marbury v. Madison or Terry v. Ohio. Another case which also falls under this category of large impact, but little notoriety, is Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

The Palsgraf case took place in 1924 at a train station in New York. Helen Plasgraf, while standing on a platform owned by the Long Island Railroad Company, was struck by a scale, which fell onto her following the unexpected explosion of a container of fireworks.[1] Subsequently, Palsgraf filed suit against the Railroad Company for negligence. The trial court ruled in her favor and the ruling was reaffirmed following appeal in 1927. The two lower courts found that negligent actions of Long Island Railroad Company employees caused the explosive package to be thrown under the train where they exploded, which caused the scale to strike Palsgraf.[2] However, the Railroad Company then took the case to New York’s highest court of appeals, which found in its favor, reversing the previous court rulings and stating that the Railroad Company in fact did not act negligently and therefore was not accountable for the incident.

The Court’s ruling in favor of the Long Island Railroad Company was handed down via a 4 to 3 vote on May 29, 1928.  In explanation of its decision, the Court stated that "the basis of an action for negligence must be a violation of the plaintiff's own right, and not merely a wrong against someone else”.[3] Following this logic, the Court saw that the company's employees were negligent in causing the package to drop, which then exploded, but were not negligent in the explosion’s subsequent effect on Helen Plasgraf. Crucial to following the Court’s reasoning in making this decision was their understanding that the employees of Long Island Railroad did not know the package contained explosive items. Because they did not know that it did, the Court found that they could not be deemed negligent for the effects of the package's explosion.

Today, the Plasgraf case is studied in, presumably, every American law school torts course. The ruling handed down in the lawsuit paved much of the road for the evolution in American common law on torts which followed it. Plasgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company defined the boundaries of negligence in our civil law courts by limiting the scope of duty of a party to only foreseeable harms. This created the possibility that future defendants could win cases by proving no such duty existed in a case -an often easier task than proving it was not responsible for causing a harm.[4]

Joining the Plasgraf case are numerous others that have also greatly shaped America’s torts laws. In 1947, United States v. Carroll Towing Co. established the standard of care expected of a party based on the cost of potential damage, the probability of damage to occur, and the expenses it would take a party to take adequate precautions. One year later, the ruling in Summers v. Tice stated that if a  plaintiff can't figure out which single defendant in a group of defendants specifically caused his or her injury, that as long as it is proven that both defendants were negligent, the plaintiff may recover against one or both of them, and it's up to the defendants to determine their own liability amongst themselves. Also vastly important was the 1955 ruling in Garratt v. Dailey, which established a party’s acting in and with "substantial certainty" of resultant harm is enough to prove their intent in causing it.[5] These important rulings have been joined by scores of others over the past many decades and will continue to be joined by many more in the constant evolution of tort law.

Undoubtedly, tort law will continue to evolve and remain a very relevant aspect of our system of jurisprudence. As human interaction continues to expand and be had in novel forms via the expansion of technology and rapid globalization, it is likely that more landmark rulings will be made in the near future. Even if you are not interested in learning about them, every American would be wise to do so. Indeed, keeping apprised of the noteworthy changes in our nation’s tort laws may be beneficial to you if you find yourself as a party to an unforeseeable torts law-related incident. They occur everyday, and even a rudimentary understanding of these laws may help you collect the compensation you deserve.

______________________________________________________________

[1] casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-dobbs/negligence-the-scope-of-risk-or-proximate-cause-requirement/palsgraf-v-long-island-r-co/

[2] https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-palsgraf-v-long-island-r-co

[3] https://law.jrank.org/pages/23680/Palsgraf-v-Long-Island-Railroad-Company-Significance.html

[4] https://www.rosenfeldinjurylawyers.com/news/palsgraf-v-long-island-railroad/

[5] https://blogs.findlaw.com/greedy_associates/2014/08/5-classic-torts-cases-made-simple-for-1ls.html

[wisconsinprelawland-blog]

The Admissibility of Evidence

By Alex Pagel,  Mitchell Hamline School of Law Class of 2024  

July 27, 2020 

To protect against wrongfully convicting parties of crimes and civil infringements, courts in America must make rulings based on solid and justifiable grounds, not on guesses or a hunch. To obtain these grounds, courtrooms rely heavily on the collection, presentation and analysis of relevant evidence in all legal cases.

Evidence consists of any type of proof that may be legally presented before a judge and/or jury that is intended to convince them of alleged facts relevant to the case being considered. This includes both material items, such as documents and photographs, as well as intangible pieces of evidence like expert and witness testimony.[1] A subcategory of evidence, known as circumstantial evidence, may also be used to convict a party. Evidence is referred to as “circumstantial” when it is not drawn from the direct observation of a fact at issue in a case. For example, if a witness were to testify that he heard a gunshot and ran to the scene and saw a person holding a gun and standing over a dead body (but did not see the actual shooting of the now dead individual), his given testimony would be considered as circumstantial evidence.[2] Circumstantial evidence, in combination with material items and other relevant evidentiary pieces, may be very helpful in proving one's case to a court.

However, there are rules regarding what is and what is not admissible as evidence in a lawsuit. Many of these rules are based on the Federal Rules of Evidence, established in 1975 by then president Gerald Ford. The Federal Rules of Evidence were drafted with the intent to create a uniform body of rules concerning the admission and exclusion of evidence in both criminal and civil trials across our country. While rules pertaining to this manner existed prior to 1975, they were unevenly applied and were not followed by some courts. While the Federal Rules of Evidence only apply to federal courts, many states have created their own laws regarding the admission and exclusion of evidence based upon them.[3] Thus, there isn’t uniform law regarding this manner practiced by every state, but there are numerous rules and practices that are followed by the vast majority of them.

Based upon those Rules presented in 1975, case rulings on the topic, and laws that have since been created pertaining to the issue, there exists two general requirements for evidence to be admissible in a trial. Firstly, the evidence must be relevant to the case in consideration. In order for evidence to be considered relevant, it must (a) have a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and (b) be of consequence in determining the action.[4] Secondly, the evidence sought to be brought before the court must not be outweighed by countervailing considerations. Simply put, this requires that the evidence isn’t a waste of time for the court to consider, isn’t based on hearsay and isn’t unfairly prejudicial.[5] Because these rules leave room for interpretation by the court, it is up to the attorneys in the case to successfully persuade as to why certain evidence should or should not be admissible at trial. Counsel’s success or failure in this regard may heavily impact the likelihood that their client receives a favorable ruling in their case.

Furthermore, all admissible evidence can be categorized as being one of four different types. The four types of admissible evidence are real evidence, demonstrative evidence, documentary evidence, and testimonial evidence. Real evidence encompasses anything that was used or present in the case being presented, such as a weapon or bloodied clothing; demonstrative evidence refers to items used to illustrate testimony that has been given, often via diagrams or maps; documentary evidence includes any document, such as a letter or a contract, that pertains to the trail; and testimonial evidence is, simply, any statement that was given by a witness or other relevant person in the trial.[6] It’s important to note, though, that these different types of evidence may not carry the same persuasive weight at every trial.[7] Depending on the type and facts of the case on hand, counsel may be more persuasive in proving their case to a judge and/or jury by using certain types of evidence rather than others.

Similar to having rules regarding what makes a piece of evidence admissible, there are also laws specifying what makes evidence inadmissible in court. Perhaps the cornerstone and foundation of these rules pertaining to inadmissibility in criminal proceedings is the Exclusionary Rule. Established by the landmark ruling in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Exclusionary Rule states that any evidence unlawfully obtained may not be used as evidence in a criminal trial. While a handful of exceptions have been made in its regard, the Exclusionary Rule continues to guide judges to this day in their determinations of what evidence is inadmissible in criminal trials.[8] While the Exclusionary Rule doesn’t apply to civil trials, they too generally do not allow for illegally obtained evidence to be used in their proceedings and will also not accept evidence that is irrelevant to the case or based upon hearsay. Therefore, if a civil judge finds a piece of evidence brought before the court to be irrelevant, it will be considered inadmissible in the court; if the evidence in such a trial is based on hearsay (an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts, which may be factual or not), generally will also be considered inadmissible. [9][10]

Collectively, these rules of admissibility and inadmissibility determine what pieces of evidence are allowed for use in our courts of law. In establishing the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, our state and federal courts became much more consistent in how they determine what evidence is admissible, allowing for greater uniformity among all courts in our country. Largely guided by the concept of relevancy, these rules ensure that courts only admit evidence that pertains to and has some form of impact on the case in consideration. Similarly, following these Rules has allowed our judicial system to label inadmissible pieces of evidence which do not have clear relevance to the case at hand, which have been obtained in an illegal manner, and that which is based upon hearsay. By consistently following these laws, our system of jurisprudence has become more consistent, respected, and legitimate. More importantly, however, it has protected the liberties of the American people and decreased their chances of being wrongfully convicted for legal infringements that they did not commit.

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=671

[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence

[3] https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/what-are-the-federal-rules-of-evidence-.html

[4] https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401

[5] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/admissible_evidence#:~:text=To%20be%20admissible%20in%20court,%2C%20or%20based%20on%20hearsay).

[6] https://www.sivinandmiller.com/blog/2018/07/looking-at-the-4-types-of-evidence/#:~:text=The%20four%20types%20of%20evidence,%2C%20real%2C%20testimonial%20and%20documentary.

[7] https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/real-and-demonstrative-evidence.html

[8] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule

[9] https://www.rflawgroup.com/what-makes-a-piece-of-evidence-inadmissible-in-court/

[10]