"Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is. Name: Ryan J. Hetzel Appointed to: Washington County Circuit Court Appointment date: May 3, 2022 Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point High School – West Bend East, West Bend, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: October 2016-present – Hetzel Law Office, LLC, West Bend, Wisconsin January 2008-2016 – partner with Hetzel & Nelson, West Bend, Wisconsin August 2002-December 2007 – Hetzel Law Office, LLC, West Bend, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: Wisconsin Bar Wisconsin Supreme Court U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: My current practice is litigation with an emphasis on plaintiffs personal injury work and applicant's workers compensation cases. I also handle civil litigation with respect to insurance, contract claims and contested probate or trust matters. Finally, I still handle some criminal defense work, traffic defense, and family law cases. I have tried over 50 cases to verdict with a mixture of criminal and civil cases. For many years I acted as a guardian ad litem on family cases, although I have not done so in the last 5 years, other than for minor settlements. I am currently a solo practitioner but have practiced in a partnership and have had as many as 4 attorneys employed with my firm. Describe typical clients: My clients come from all walks of life. I have represented adult and juvenile criminal defendants, children, husbands and wives in family cases, injured people, injured employees, business owners and large corporations involved in litigation. Number of cases tried to verdict: 53 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: My most recent jury trial (October 2021) was a 7-day civil trial regarding misrepresentation and conspiracy. I represented a gunshot victim initially in 2009 against the shooter. The initial litigation was primarily attempting to secure monetary assets of that defendant, which had unfortunately been dissipated by the law firm defending him. My most recent trial was for misrepresentation and fraud against the partners of that law firm for essentially stealing their client's money and filing false documents in the underlying civil litigation. The most recent trial resulted in a $250,000 judgment against each former attorney/ defendant for compensatory and punitive damages. The trial judge was the Honorable Sandra J. Giernoth, opposing counsel were Terry Johnson and Erik Colque. Waukesha County case 08-CV-1104 and Washington County case 18-CV-251. In April 2021, I represented a woman who had a slip and fall injury at the West Bend Menards, resulting in both of her hamstrings being partially ruptured. I was successor counsel as her former attorney withdrew from her representation. That 4-day trial resulted in a verdict of $389,000, reduced by 13% for contributory negligence. The trial judge was the Honorable Todd K. Martens. Opposing counsel was Quentin Shafer. Washington County case 18-CV-21. My last criminal jury trial was a 2-day trial in July of 2017. My client was charged with third-degree sexual assault; accused of inappropriately touching a client at his massage parlor. My client was acquitted of the charge. The trial judge was the Honorable Michael Aprahamian. Opposing counsel was Adam Y. Gerol. Washington County case 16-CF-439. I have since tried another sexual assault case in late 2019, however my client elected to waive the jury on the first day of trial against my advice, which was, of course, his right to do so. Washington County case 18-CF-467. In all of these cases, I was the only attorney to appear at trial for my client. I do not use a paralegal at trial. I manage my own exhibits and trial materials. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have handled many worker's compensation hearings to completion before both the Department of Workforce Development and Hearings and Appeals (currently). I have handled administrative review hearings for driver's license suspensions in OWI cases. I have challenged financial responsibility determinations in cases where liability with an uninsured driver is disputed. I have appeared at unemployment hearings and discrimination hearings regarding employment terminations. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I have attended more than 100 mediations, primarily in personal injury cases. I have also attended mediations on civil matters involving business contract disputes, the sale of homes, and contested estate matters. I have conducted two arbitrations for personal injury matters as lead counsel for an injured plaintiff. All public offices to which you were appointed or elected: President, West Bend Business Improvement District, appointed by mayor, 2010-2012 Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None Previous runs for public office: None All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: James K. Muehlbauer, Circuit Court Judge James G. Pouros, Circuit Court Judge Andrew T. Gonring, Circuit Court Judge Jill J. Karofsky, Supreme Court Justice Rebecca F. Dallett, Supreme Court Justice Lisa Neubauer, Supreme Court Justice Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Downtown West Bend Association, president, board, 2008-2020 United Way of Washington County, board, 2013-2018 West Bend Business Improvement District, president, 2010-2012 Citizen Advocacy of Washington County, president, board, 2005-2011 Washington County Injury Prevention Coalition, member, 2014-2016 and November 2020-present Wisconsin Association for Justice, member, 1997-present; board member, 2009-present Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, member, 2002-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Every board that I sat on … was a volunteer position. For most of those boards, I was requested to provide some legal work free of charge, which could range from negotiating leases to giving legal opinions regarding insurance, risk, etc. I was tasked with converting the DWBA to a 501(c)(3), which I did with the assistance of outside counsel. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge — I believe there is no greater honor than serving as a circuit court judge. As a judge, one has the opportunity to ensure that the parties have access to the court system, that the rules and law are applied fairly to them, and that they are given their day in court. I was born and raised in Washington County. I chose to raise my children in Washington County. I think it is a wonderful place to live and work. I have a deep admiration for the Washington County Bar Association and its history. I feel it is very important as a lawyer to give back to your community. It would truly be an honor to be able to serve this community in the capacity of a circuit court judge. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. Both cases that come to mind are US Supreme Court cases but each has had a large impact on the citizens of Wisconsin. Obergdfell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) granted the fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples. I was fortunate enough to attend a same sex wedding in Madison in the summer of 2015 that had been scheduled well before the decision came down. The case was decided only days before the wedding and the officiant quoted from the case during the ceremony, which was truly a unique experience. I was able to observe the firsthand the joy that decision created for people who had previously been marginalized and their rights questioned. The second case is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). In that case, our Supreme court held that the government could not limit independent and corporate expenditures for political campaigns under the First Amendment. This decision opened the proverbial floodgates by allowing corporations unfettered access to political parties and candidates. This decision, in my opinion, has endangered fairness in elections in Wisconsin by allowing special interests to fund candidates and influence elections. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I greatly admire Shirley Abrahamson. She was a pioneer in the legal field in Wisconsin. I always believed her opinions were well-reasoned and that her rationale for each decision was explained so that the law could be meaningfully applied in the future. I had the opportunity to meet her personally on several occasions, including inviting her to speak at the Washington County Bar Law Day when I was the President of the Bar. In addition to being an incredible legal mind, she was a delightful person. Closer to home, I greatly admire recently retired Judge Andrew T. Gonring. Judge Gonring was still a practicing attorney when I began my career and was rumored to be the best trial lawyer in the county. I never had a case with him as an attorney, but when he took the bench, his reputation was not lost upon me. When I appeared before him, I always wanted to demonstrate to him that I was prepared and knew the facts and the law of my cases. That experience made me a better lawyer. The proper role of a judge: It is the responsibility of the judge to apply the law fairly and even-handedly to the parties. A judge's role is to make sure that every citizen has access to the courts and is treated with respect. It is the role of the judge to make sure that the law is applied properly and that justice is served, whatever the result.
0 Comments
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds Dane County's COVID-19 health restrictions.
In a 4-3 ruling released Friday, the majority found that state law grants local health officers the power to issue public health orders without first getting permission from elected city and county officials. Justices Jill Karofsky, Ann Walsh Bradley and Rebecca Dallet, all of whom won their seats with backing from Democrats, formed the majority. The dissenters — Justices Rebecca Bradley, Annette Ziegler and Patience Roggensack — were elected with the help of Republicans. Justice Brian Hagedorn, who was also backed by Republicans but has often been a swing vote on the court, sided with the majority this time but wrote a separate, concurring opinion. GM Today: Wisconsin Supreme Court says parents suing school must disclose their names. The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, a conservative law firm, is representing the parents. The firm's attorneys asked Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington to allow them to proceed without revealing the parents' names out of fear they would be subject to retaliation and harassment. Remington ordered the firm to give the names to him and school district attorneys under seal. The firm refused, arguing that the district's attorneys could leak the names and that their identities aren't relevant. The firm has insisted that the parents are indeed Madison school district residents and, as such, have standing to sue. The Supreme Court upheld Remington's order and remanded the case back to him to continue deliberations on the merits. Slate: Mark Joseph Stern on the Wisconsin Supreme Court's ballot-box decision. In truth, though, we all suffer from this decision. It is a blow to the democratic project that undermines free and fair elections while purporting to protect them. (Justice Rebecca) Grassl Bradley proclaimed that making voting harder somehow increases the legitimacy of the results, a baseless yet fundamental tenet of the modern Republican Party. Worse, she has signed her court onto Republicans’ lie that the results of Wisconsin’s 2020 election were “illegitimate” because they included ballots cast “unlawfully.” Her decision is a love letter to the Big Lie. APG: Wisconsin state senator threatens to sue Secretary of State for not mailing joint resolution calling for federal constitutional convention. The resolution holds that the secretary of state must send an application to Congress and other state legislatures for a convention of states. But (Secretary of State Doug) La Follette and his office not only haven’t sent those documents but are rarely returning messages or emails asking whether they’ve done so, according to state Sen. Kathleen Bernier, R-Chippewa Falls, the Senate majority caucus vice chair and chair of the Senate Elections Committee. . . . In response, La Follette said in an interview that he didn’t send the documents by mail because his office didn’t have enough money. He added that his office has now ordered the envelopes and hopes to send out the documents by Aug. 1, after which time Bernier said she would take legal action. “Here’s the point of these Republicans,” La Follette said. “They have stripped the office to nothing. They have cut the budget to nothing. They have eliminated the staff to nothing. And then they complain that we don’t do things. I mean, I’m fed up with them to be honest.” Bankrate: Study puts Wisconsin fifth in number of cases of road rage involving a firearm, behind only Texas, Florida, California, and Tennessee. The Guardian: Justice Clarence Thomas played the long game. “By virtue of the fact that Clarence Thomas has been on the supreme court as long as he has, he has slowly gained much more influence and has now become the dominant ideological leader of the conservatives,” said Edward Fallone, an associate professor at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. “He is certainly more confident and more muscular now that he has allies on his side but he has been strikingly consistent over the decades. He simply waited for the rest of the conservative world to catch up to him.” Politico: The religious right's methods to influence Supreme Court justices. Rob Schenck, an evangelical minister who headed the Faith and Action group headquartered near the Supreme Court from 1995 to 2018, said he arranged over the years for about 20 couples to fly to Washington to visit with and entertain Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and the late Antonin Scalia. Schenck, who was once an anti-abortion activist but broke with the religious right in the last decade over its aggressive tactics and support for gun rights, said the couples were instructed before the dinners to use certain phrases to influence the justices while steering clear of the specifics of cases pending before the court — for example, to “talk about the importance of a child having a father and a mother,” rather than engage in the particulars of a gay-rights case. Above the Law: Morton's Steakhouse says one's right to protest must bow to Justice Kavanaugh's right to eat dinner. Interestingly, the “right to congregate and eat dinner” is nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution and a quick Google search of major periodicals of the 18th century found no mention of this specific scenario. Looks like we’ve got another activist steakhouse on our hands! This is why you have to get out and vote so Ruth’s Chris can make these decisions. Virginia Mercury: Virginia governor signs law curtailing good-time credits just two weeks before many incarcerated persons expected release. Yahoo News (People): Pregnant woman in Texas cites overturning of Roe v. Wade when pulled over for driving in carpool lane, gets ticket anyway. (Brandy) Battone said the cop told her the HOV lane requires two passengers, meaning "two people outside of the body." According to the Texas penal code, the term "'Individual' means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." . . . "One officer kind of brushed me off when I mentioned this is a living child, according to everything that's going on with the overturning of Roe v. Wade," she continued. "'So I don't know why you're not seeing that,' I said. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin Supreme Court rules that drop boxes are out, though help in mailing an absentee ballot remains available for now.
Writing for the majority, Justice Rebecca Bradley said state law does not permit drop boxes anywhere other than election clerk offices and only state lawmakers may make new policy stating otherwise — not the Wisconsin Elections Commission, which issued guidance to clerks allowing them. . . . The decision ensures, for now, that Wisconsin voters with significant physical disabilities may have a friend or family member drop their absentee ballot in a mailbox for them, but such voters may no longer be able to have others return their absentee ballots to a local clerk's office in person. Channel 3000: Anti-violence groups applaud Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that sex trafficking victim accused of killing abuser can argue self-defense. The New York Times: California governor pardons woman who killed the man who trafficked her. The case had reignited criticism of the way that courts treat survivors of abuse, especially those who are adolescents. Criminal justice reform advocates have said the judge in her case did not treat her with enough compassion; Ms. Kruzan, though 16 at the time of the crime, was tried as an adult, and the judge did not permit evidence about the abuse to be presented during her trial, The Los Angeles Times has reported. The Atlantic: Eliminate presidential immunity. Since 1973, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has taken the position, which it affirmed in 2000, that a sitting president may be investigated, but not prosecuted, for crimes. This is now executive-branch law. To defend himself from potential federal and state prosecutions by seeking the office that would immunize him, Trump would be exploiting the constitutional system at one of its most dangerously vulnerable points. . . . Written at the end of the Clinton presidency, following years of independent-counsel inquiries that took a clear toll on the administration, the 2000 opinion’s attempt to establish a constitutionally grounded distinction between investigation and prosecution seemed remarkably blind to reality. Even on their own terms, neither this opinion nor its predecessor holds water. And they clash with core intuitions about the rule of law in a democracy: for example, that it could not be true, as one Trump lawyer asserted in a federal court proceeding, that a president could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and be immune from prosecution. Grist: Lawsuits about the psychological harm of climate inaction. The Hill: How to measure whether incarceration is successful. The New York Times: Derek Chauvin sentenced to 21 years for violating George Floyd's civil rights. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin Supreme Court decision makes it harder to recover fees for public records violations.
In a case that started when the city of Waukesha tried to bring summer league baseball to Frame Park in 2017, a divided court found the city didn't violate the law by withholding a draft contract for two months after a citizens group requested it under the open records law. More crucially, the court also held that if government turns over records voluntarily, after being sued but before a judge takes action, the requesters have not prevailed under the law and can no longer seek attorneys fees. "Absent a judicially sanctioned change in the parties' legal relationship, attorney's fees are not recoverable under § 19.37(2)(a)," Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote for the majority. Politico: Members of President Biden's commission on the Supreme Court resume calls for court expansion. Former U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner, who served on Biden’s commission, said in an interview that the court’s striking down of Roe v. Wade, a New York law that restricted open carry, and the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon emissions vindicated her belief that more seats should be added to the nine-member body. “It was a place of solidity and rational discourse. It really is not anymore,” Gertner said of the Supreme Court. “It really is a set of decisions that they did only because they can. And that is an exercise of pure power, not legal reasoning.” NPR: Former White House attorney Pat Cipollone to appear before Jan. 6 committee tomorrow. Reuters: Paul Clement starts new firm to continue gun manufacturers' fight against nuisance lawsuits. The National Shooting Sports Foundation said Wednesday that it has hired Paul Clement and Erin Murphy to appeal a judge's rejection of its challenge to a New York law that allows the state and people affected by gun violence to sue gun manufacturers. . . . (Clement) and Murphy departed after Kirkland (& Ellis), one of the largest corporate law firms in America, announced it would no longer represent clients in matters involving the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms. ProPublica: Federal authorities investigating Operation Lone Star, Texas governor's border initiative. Above the Law: Oklahoma attorney disbarred after running law practice from jail. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: A third judge orders Michael Gableman to stop deleting records.
Governing: The independent state legislature case in SCOTUS's next term could end democracy. “ISL (independent state legislature theory) is as made up as anything I know of out there in constitutional law,” says Vikram Amar, dean of the University of Illinois School of Law. “The Constitution uses the word ‘Congress’ 60 times, mostly not as an entity but part of a process. ‘Legislature’ is a shorthand for a lawmaking process, governed by the state constitution itself.” Since the court agreed to hear the case on Friday, the theory has been described as “nutty” and “radical.” “This is quite literally where American democracy dies,” tweeted University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket. The reason ISL critics are apoplectic is the potential the case has for allowing legislatures to override the will of the voters and pick the winners of presidential elections. “Under ISL, if a legislature announced today that it would pick electors, ISL would say that’s OK as long as they do it in advance,” Amar says. Insider: We should expect deaths for pregnant cancer patients in states where doctors fear treatment will violate abortion laws. Many cancer treatments will not affect the pregnancy. Surgery, for instance to remove tumors, is usually not a big risk, said Dr. Karen Knudsen, CEO of the American Cancer Society. But chemotherapy and radiation therapy can, in some cases, affect a fetus and raise the risk of miscarriage, said Blank, who is also the director of Gynecologic Oncology for the Mount Sinai Health System. Some cancers, like cervical cancer or gestational trophoblastic disease, are not possible to treat without ending a pregnancy, she said. Reuters: Federal judges may have conflict of interest issue regarding Berkshire holdings. Politico: Some attorneys who filed baseless claims for Donald Trump have escaped discipline and their business is thriving. In total, at least 16 lawyers who represented plaintiffs in five federal lawsuits promoting Trump’s baseless election fraud claims in the key battlegrounds of Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin and Arizona remain in good standing or have no record of disciplinary action with their respective bar associations or licensing authorities, according to a POLITICO review. Fourteen of them have since engaged in additional work in support of the election fraud conspiracies or conspiracists behind Trump’s attempt to remain in power despite losing the election to President Joe Biden. These include defending accused Jan. 6 rioters, consulting for partisan election “audits” or partaking in advocacy or legal cases sowing doubts about the integrity of the nation’s elections, POLITICO found. Reuters: Republican states are targeting corporations with "anti-woke" laws. Republican-led states have unleashed a policy push to punish Wall Street for taking stances on gun control, climate change, diversity and other social issues, in a warning for companies that have waded in to fractious social debates. Abortion rights are poised to be the next frontier. This year there are at least 44 bills or new laws in 17 conservative-led states penalizing such company policies, compared with roughly a dozen such measures in 2021, according to a Reuters analysis of state legislative agendas, public documents and statements. By Gretchen Schuldt Walmart must pay a jury verdict to a former employee of a Beloit store who lost his job after a store manager decided the employee’s disabilities prevented him from doing his job as a cart attendant, a federal appeals court has ruled. The three-judge panel for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the jury's conclusion that the employee, Paul Reina, could adequately perform his job as cart attendant. The panel rejected Walmart's argument that a full-time job coach is never a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court had awarded Reina $200,000 in compensatory damages plus punitive damages. The appeals court declined Walmart's request to reverse the punitive damages award on the ground that the theory of liability was novel. The panel also rejected a request by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for an injunction that would require Walmart to take numerous steps to prevent future discrimination. “Because the jury had sufficient evidence to find as it did and because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm,” U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas L. Kirsch II wrote for the panel. He was joined by Circuit Judges Frank H. Easterbrook and Ilana D. Rovner. The decision upheld an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson of the Western District of Wisconsin. The jury awarded Reina $5 million in punitive damages, but Peterson reduced the amount to $100,000 to satisfy a statutory damages cap. Reina worked for Walmart from 1998 to 2015. He is deaf and legally blind and has anxiety, according to the decision. He communicates through sign language, gestures, and facial expressions and was assisted in his job by Medicaid-paid full-time job coaches. He had three different coaches over the course of his employment. All apparently was fine until a new manager took over the store in 2015. Another employee, who did not witness the incident, reported that Reina and his job coach were fighting in the parking lot. The manager did not review what happened, but decided to watch Reina at work. He expressed concern that Reina’s job coach was doing “90-95% of Reina’s job,” Kirsch wrote. The manager eventually suspended Reina and told Reina’s foster mother to fill out paperwork as if Reina were a new employee. That included having a doctor fill out a medical accommodation questionnaire. Communication stopped for almost a year, and Reina filed a complaint with the EEOC. Then, in March 2016, Walmart wrote to Reina asking him to continue the employment process. The EEOC sued on Reina’s behalf, alleging that Walmart discriminated against Reina and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Walmart sought summary dismissal, arguing that Reina could not perform the essential functions of his job and that a full-time job coach was never a reasonable accommodation. Peterson denied the motion, ruling that those were questions for a jury. Peterson also rejected Walmart’s request that the trial be broken into two phases, one to determine liability and a second to determine damages. Both sides agreed on the essential functions of a cart attendant, Kirsch wrote. Peterson also adopted Walmart’s recommended jury instructions. But at trial, Walmart lost. A jury found that Walmart violated the ADA by failing to provide Reina with a reasonable accommodation and by ending Reina’s employment because of his disability. It also found that Walmart acted with malice or reckless disregard of Reina’s rights under the ADA, Kirsch said. Walmart argued on appeal that Reina could not perform important parts of his job, which include retrieving, organizing, and managing traditional and motorized carts and providing customer service, Kirsch wrote. “But its theory on appeal asks us to reweigh evidence as if this were a jury trial,” he said. “Rather than come to grips with the evidence presented at trial and evaluated by the jury, Walmart signals that we should determine de novo which cart attendant functions were essential and whether Reina was able to perform those functions.” At trial, Kirsch wrote, two of Reina’s job coaches testified that he was able to perform the essential functions. One testified that Reina “was able to do the job with very minimal intervention from me, no hand or anything like that.” The other said that Reina “had complete control” over the carts so that the coach had no “physical role in steering the train of carts [Reina] was pushing.” “Walmart argues that Reina was unable to perform the essential functions of a cart attendant because he could not steer the carts safely by himself, but a reasonable jury could disagree and, apparently, did,” Kirsch wrote. “We will not second-guess its weighing of the evidence.” Walmart also argued that Reina could not perform essential functions of his job because he could not handle motorized carts by himself. “And the jury reasonably could have determined that retrieving motorized carts was not an essential function based on the evidence before it: that motorized carts were abandoned in the parking lot only once or twice a month," Kirsch wrote. The jury also had enough information to find that customer service was not an essential function of Reina’s job, he said. And even if it was an essential function, there was enough evidence to find that Reina performed it. A job coach testified that “Reina could point customers in the right direction when they asked for something in the parking lot,” Kirsch wrote. “Reina regularly helped people load things into their cars and helped elderly customers by collecting their empty carts so that they would not have to walk them back themselves. Customers told (the coach) that seeing Reina work there made them feel proud of Walmart. And Reina’s performance evaluations from Walmart praised him for being friendly and courteous.” In rejecting Walmart’s argument that a full-time job coach is never a reasonable accommodation – a rule no other circuit has created – Kirsch noted that an employer is not required to pay for having two people do the same work. “But neither Reina nor the EEOC asked for Walmart to pay for Reina’s job coaches,” he wrote. “So we need not decide when, if ever, that would be required as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.” The jury had sufficient evidence to find for the EEOC, he wrote. The panel also said that the EEOC’s theory of liability was “by no means ‘novel.’ ” “Because our case law bases the definition of reasonable accommodation on the circumstance specific question of essential functions, Walmart was on notice that a jury could find a full-time job coach to be a reasonable accommodation for Reina if he or she did not perform the essential functions of Reina’s job," Kirsch said. "Contrary to what Walmart argues, it’s not an open question whether a permanent job coach can be a reasonable accommodation," Kirsch wrote. Peterson also did not abuse his discretion in denying Walmart’s request for a two-part trial, the appeals court said. “Time and again, the district court gave limiting instructions to mitigate any potential prejudice to Walmart due to a unified trial,” Kirsch said. ”And nothing in the record disposes us to disagree with the district court’s conclusion that judicial efficiency favored no bifurcation in this case.” In rejecting the EEOC’s request for an injunction, the panel found that Peterson did not abuse his discretion ”in evaluating factors and concluding that ‘this incident at one store involved unique circumstances that do not justify the far-reaching injunction that EEOC seeks.’ ” NBC: Person of interest in Highland Park parade shooting involved with violent online content.
(T)he person of interest identified by police after Monday’s shooting in a Chicago suburb that killed six people and wounded 38 others, left a long trail of tributes to mass shootings and public killings on social media platforms, according to numerous profiles that appear to belong to him. SCOTUSblog: For 2021-2022 Supreme Court term, 6-3 was the most common vote — and other SCOTUS stats. The 2021-22 term — one of the most momentous in the court’s 233-year history — was defined by conservative milestones on abortion, guns, religion, and climate change regulation. But a statistical analysis of the full merits docket shows that the court’s rightward shift runs even deeper than those blockbuster cases. Unanimous decisions sharply declined as 6-3 outcomes surged. The conservative justices showed high levels of agreement. And the three liberal justices dissented at the highest rates of their time on the court. Politico: The president and Congress have the power to reduce the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction; should they use it to curb the court's power? In theory, Congress could very easily pass legislation denying the Supreme Court jurisdiction over a new voting rights act, a law codifying the right to privacy (including abortion rights), and other popular measures. If they so chose, Congress and the president could go further, reducing the court to a shell of its former self, leaving it to adjudicate minor matters of little significance. Of course, with the filibuster in place, this outcome is about as likely as a bill expanding the court’s membership, which is to say, very unlikely. NBC: Don't be fooled: the Supreme Court's originalism is male white supremacy. Reuters: Abortion drug maker challenging Mississippi on whether it can still sell pills. GenBioPro said that law will create a "that-much more direct and glaring conflict" with the FDA. It cited U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland's statement last week that states "may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA's expert judgment about its safety and efficacy." Slate: President and Senate need to get moving on filling judicial vacancies. To move forward with nominations in states with Republican senators, the White House and Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin must be willing to bypass a Senate tradition known as blue slips, which allow any senator to functionally veto district court nominees in his or her own state. This tradition was weaponized by segregationist senators to stop pro-civil rights judges nominated in their home states, and during the Obama administration, it persisted as an enormous obstacle to diversifying the judiciary. Anyone who thinks the White House can work with Senate Republicans on judicial nominations should look at Wisconsin, where Sen. Ron Johnson recommended a qualified district court candidate, only to abruptly pull his support after the nomination was actually announced. It’s worth noting that when Republicans controlled the Senate under Donald Trump, they ignored blue slips from Democratic Senators on circuit court nominees, effectively dismantling that deference for Democrats when they are out of power. Abolishing the blue slip custom once and for all will require cooperation from the Senate, but the White House should force the issue and expose the absurdity of the system by nominating qualified, professionally diverse nominees in these states and daring the Senate to block them. ABC: Jurors deciding whether Parkland shooter gets death penalty will face trauma and stress alone. Throughout what is expected to be a monthslong penalty trial, Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer will order jurors not to talk to anyone about what they have seen, heard or thought. Not their spouse. Not their best friend. Not their clergy or therapist. Not even each other until deliberations begin. The order is not unusual; it is issued at all trials to ensure jurors’ opinions aren’t influenced by outsiders. Once the trial ends, the 12 jurors and 10 alternates can unload to others — but they won’t receive any assistance from the judicial system. As is the case in most of the United States, neither Florida nor Broward County courts provide juries with post-trial counseling. The Guardian: US judge asks Biden administration for its position on sovereign immunity for Mohammed bin Salman in case brought against him by the fiancee of Jamal Khashoggi. The administration’s decision could have a profound effect on the civil case and comes as Joe Biden is facing criticism for abandoning a campaign promise to turn Saudi Arabia into a “pariah”. The US president is due to meet the heir apparent to the Saudi throne later this month when he makes his first trip to Riyadh since entering the White House. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign: Wisconsin Supreme Court decision allows Department of Natural Resources board member Frederick Prehn to stay on, curtailing governor's power.
As (dissenting Justice Rebecca) Dallet explained, “Allowing Prehn to continue serving in office indefinitely makes him the final authority on whether he remains in office—not the legislature, which specified by statute that his term expired over 13 months ago, and not the governor, who the legislature gave the authority to nominate a replacement. One unelected official should not be able to dictate his term in office over the will of the people's elected representatives.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin Supreme Court says conservation group has no standing to challenge Kohler Co. land swap for golf course. In dissent, Justice Jill Karofsky blasted the majority's "textualism" approach as a "rhetorical smokescreen obscuring a result-oriented analysis." Justices Rebecca Dallet and Ann Walsh Bradley joined the dissent. Slate: Effects of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision restricting Environmental Protection Agency authority. In yet another major blow to democratic constitutionalism, the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. EPA that the Clean Air Act does not give EPA authority to regulate the power grid as a whole. The decision will likely limit the EPA’s authority to address climate change across the board. But the issue is even broader. The opinion undermines the federal regulatory state that Congress has established—with the court’s blessing—over the past 200 years. Using a legal rule of its own invention that defies the intent of Congress, the court has struck at the heart of government agencies’ ability to protect the public. Slate: Why the end of the U.S. Supreme Court's term was even worse than you may have thought. Consider the issues that SCOTUS has resolved this term—the first full term with a 6–3 conservative supermajority. The constitutional right to abortion: gone. States’ ability to limit guns in public: gone. Tribal sovereignty against state intrusion: gone. Effective constraints around separation of church and state: gone. The bar on prayer in public schools: gone. Effective enforcement of Miranda warnings: gone. The ability to sue violent border agents: gone. The Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases at power plants: gone. Vast areas of the law, established over the course of decades, washed away by a court over a few months.... We barely had time to recover from West Virginia and Texas before the Supreme Court dropped the judicial equivalent of an atomic bomb. In its final orders list before Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the court, it announced that it will hear Moore v. Harper next term. It is impossible to overstate the threat that Moore poses to American democracy. The case asks the court to adopt the “independent state legislature” theory, which holds that state legislatures have near-limitless power over their state’s election law. State courts are shut out, as are election boards and maybe even the governor. State constitutional limits on voter suppression, including gerrymandering, are void. Independent commissions tasked with redistricting are illegitimate. The Sacramento Bee: California Senate fails to pass anti-slavery amendment in time for November ballot. The amendment, which requires voter approval, would delete language in the constitution that bans forced labor, except as a form of punishment. Lawmakers can vote on the bill this year, but it would not go to voters until 2023 at the earliest. . . . Four states have removed language in their state constitution that appeared to have allowed slavery or involuntary servitude. The list includes Rhode Island in 1842, Colorado in 2018, and Nebraska and Utah in 2020. Voters in Oregon and Tennessee later this year are expected to consider similar measures. Marijuana Moment: Federal pardon attorney talks mass clemency for those with nonviolent cannabis offenses. To study bail jumping in Wisconsin, WJI and the Mastantuono Coffee & Thomas law firm are looking county by county at 2021 bail-jumping charges. Which counties are charging bail jumping the most? Who are some of the defendants? What happens to those cases? We'll report the statistics from individual counties and tell you the stories from randomly chosen cases. Burnett County Total number of cases with bail-jumping charges: 131* Total number of misdemeanor and felony cases: 598 Percent of misdemeanor and felony cases that include bail-jumping charges: 22% Total number of felony cases with bail-jumping charges: 105** Total number of all felony cases: 321 Percent of felony cases that include bail-jumping charges: 33% Total number of misdemeanor cases with bail-jumping charges: 26 Total number of all misdemeanor cases: 277 Percent of misdemeanor cases that include bail-jumping charges: 9% Largest number of bail-jumping charges issued in a single case: 8 Number of felony bail-jumping charges issued: 217 Number of misdemeanor bail-jumping charges issued: 77 * Excludes one criminal traffic misdemeanor case that included bail-jumping charges. Criminal traffic charges are not included in this analysis. **Felony cases can include felony or misdemeanor bail-jumping charges or both; misdemeanor cases can include only misdemeanor bail-jumping charges. Case counts reported as of January 2022. Case file
Reggie called the Veterans Administration to report that his grandfather was in a great deal of pain and could not get around, prompting the doctor to send the grandfather's hydrocodone prescription in the mail. Reggie (not his real name), then 20, promptly stole the prescription from the mailbox. He took some prednisone from the house, too. The grandfather learned about the hydrocodone scam the next time he visited his doctor. Reggie purportedly returned some of the drug, but what he returned turned out to be the prednisone, which exposed that theft as well. "As (Reggie) was mostly honest with me I advised him that I would not be arresting him today but the case would be going to the District Attorney for charging," Burnett County Chief Deputy Josh Henry wrote, adding "(Reggie) was advised to seek some AODA counseling." Reggie was charged in November, 2019, with identity theft for financial gain, a felony punishable by up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine; and two counts of misdemeanor theft, each punishable by up to nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine. Burnett County Judge Melissa R. Mogen set a $500 signature bond. Reggie was released. More than a year later, in January, 2021, Reggie was caught driving with 0.11 ounces of cannabis and a pipe in his car. Reggie told the arresting deputy he had taken medication used to treat seizures, panic disorder, and anxiety, according to the criminal complaint. Reggie also said he "gets nervous" and has "panic attacks" when he is pulled over. He was charged with two misdemeanors: possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. They carried a combined maximum penalty of 7 months in jail and $1,500 in fines. The prosecutor also threw in two counts of felony bail jumping. Although Reggie violated the bond conditions in just one case, the DA's office charged him with two counts of felony bail jumping because he allegedly violated his bond by having the cannabis and by having the pipe. He faced an additional 12 years in prison and $20,000 in fines. Reggie was represented by the State Public Defender's office, an indication of poverty. Mogen continued Reggie's bond. In April, 2021, Reggie settled both cases by pleading guilty to two counts of misdemeanor theft and one count of misdemeanor bail jumping. Mogen sentenced him to two years of probation and made his record eligible for expunction. Our methodology: WJI and Mastantuono Coffee & Thomas determined the number of felony and misdemeanor bail-jumping cases and charges in each county through court data. The total number of felony and misdemeanor cases filed in a county was obtained through the state's online court system. Cases selected for the "case file" section are chosen randomly through a random number-generator web site. The intent of the project is to show a variety of bail-jumping cases. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|