 By Margo Kirchner
Just seven judicial races across Wisconsin were contested in yesterday's elections. You’ve likely already heard about Judge Chris Taylor winning the open Supreme Court seat over Judge Maria Lazar. No Wisconsin Court of Appeals races were contested, so Judges Joe Donald and Rachel Graham were reelected to Districts 1 and 4 respectively, and newcomer Anthony LoCoco will join the appeals court in District 2. What happened in the six contested circuit court races? Here are results from the unofficial reports posted online by the respective counties. Dane County Branch 1: Recently appointed incumbent Ben Jones held off challenger Huma Ahsan, 55.7% to 43.9%. Florence and Forest Counties: Robert A. Kennedy Jr., with 2,182 votes, defeated Alex Seifert, with 1,644 votes. Kennedy will succeed retiring Judge Leon Stenz. Marathon County Branch 3: Michael D. Hughes defeated Douglas Bauman, 64.6% to 35.2%. Hughes will succeed retiring Judge LaMont Jacobson. Washburn County: Incumbent Angeline Winton-Roe beat challenger Aaron Marcoux by 819 votes, 2,792 to 1,973. Washington County Branch 2: Challenger Grant Scaife won against the incumbent, recently appointed Gordon Leech, 60.5% to 39.1%. Wood County Branch 3: Recently appointed incumbent Emily Nolan-Plutchak held off challenger Elizabeth Gebert, winning by 659 votes, 9,588 to 8,929. The election winners will start their new terms on Aug. 1, 2026.
0 Comments
By Margo Kirchner In last week’s Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate debate, Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s legal challenge to the spring 2020 ballot question was the foundation for one of the final questions. WISN 12 in Milwaukee held and broadcast the debate between Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judges Chris Taylor and Maria Lazar on April 2. About 10 minutes before the end, WISN moderator Matt Smith asked Taylor why she had voted against the constitutional amendment known as Marsy’s Law when she was a state legislator. Taylor served in the Wisconsin Assembly prior to appointment as a circuit court judge in 2020. After Taylor’s answer, discussing her constituents' concerns with the provision, Smith turned to Lazar. He asked her about Marsy’s Law as follows: “Judge Lazar, critics have challenged the wording on the ballot as unclear and insufficient. The court, though, in a 6-1 ruling, disagreed with that. It has led to some questions, including new debates, about what information should be made public and when. Are there negative, unintended consequences to Marsy’s Law?” Lazar first answered that the amendment “is a very good, strong law,” but admitted that “there are some issues that have come up” for the courts to decide. “I think there are some points that will have to be addressed, but overall it has been astonishingly effective and important,” she said. She attributed issues with the amendment to the drafters not knowing all the possible perspectives or effects. “It’s not like we have lawyers in our Legislature drafting most of these bills,” she said. Though Smith did not name WJI or mention the caption of the court decision, his question referenced the lawsuit WJI brought in 2019 to challenge the Marsy’s Law ballot question. WJI argued that the ballot question not only failed to fully and fairly inform voters about the contents of the amendment but, in fact, misled them. WJI argued that the ballot question failed to inform voters of the amendment’s reduction of rights of an accused. An accused's right to a fair trial, for instance, was deleted from the constitution. The Supreme Court in 2023 ruled against WJI, six to one, on a ground that had not been raised by the state defendants and that two justices sprung on the parties at oral argument. The decision gave the Legislature broad freedom to describe proposed amendments, regardless of voters being confused or misled by the ballot questions. Voters are not entitled to a fair explanation of what they are voting on. Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote for the majority that the Wisconsin Constitution “does not require any substantive discussion of the amendment in the ballot question submitted to the people. No explanation or summary is constitutionally commanded.” A ballot question is deficient “only in the rare circumstance that the question is fundamentally counterfactual such that voters were not asked to approve the actual amendment,” he wrote. Justice Rebecca Bradley concurred, saying that “(t)he constitutional purpose of a ballot question . . . is not to educate voters.” “Voters are trusted to inform themselves,” she wrote. A recent bill, AB 207, would have provided voters with significantly more information. Introduced by Republicans, it ended up with bipartisan support in the Assembly, where it passed out of committee with a unanimous vote in October 2025 and then passed the full Assembly in November. The bill would have required the Legislature to draft a one-page disclosure notice for voters with the entire text of the actual proposed constitutional amendment (not just the ballot question), a plain language summary of existing law, and a plain language explanation of the effect of the proposed amendment. The disclosure notice would be published on the Wisconsin Elections Commission’s voter registration website for at least 30 days before an election, posted on each county clerk’s website, mailed with absentee ballots, and posted at the polls on election day. Sponsor Rep. Jerry O’Connor (R-Fond du Lac) stated in written testimony in both chambers that “(n)o one likes to be at a disadvantage when asked to take a position on a crucial matter such as amending the state Constitution. Yet that is how we treat our voters when we present the voters with a referendum question on a ballot. This is unfair and unreasonable. We can and should do better.” Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) stated in written testimony urging passage, “Ballot questions are not written to explain a proposal, they’re written to implement it.” He noted that the bill "strengthens voter trust through transparency and accuracy." The Senate received the Assembly’s approved bill in November. However, the bill did not progress through the Senate’s Committee on Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs. The bill died when the Legislature adjourned in March 2026. The Senate’s version of the bill, SB 205, received a hearing in that same committee in November 2025, but the committee failed to vote on it. As for Lazar’s statement that the Legislature does not have lawyers drafting bills, in the case of the Marsy’s Law constitutional amendment, it might not have been drafted by people in Wisconsin at all. Marsy’s Law has been the personal cause of Broadcom founder, billionaire, and later convicted drug felon Henry Nicholas III, following the tragic murder of his sister. Beginning with a Marsy’s Law constitutional amendment in California in 2008, he and his organizations have advocated for substantially similar amendments in at least 20 states. Marsy’s Law for Wisconsin, LLC spent over $1.5 million from January 2017 through June 2019 lobbying the Legislature to approve the amendment and ballot question so the matter could be sent to voters in spring 2020.  Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judges Maria Lazar (L) and Chris Taylor (R) vie for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The election is tomorrow, Apr. 7. Marquette University Law School poll shows that most voters not "tuned in" to Supreme Court race2/25/2026  Marquette University Law School's Lubar Center Director Derek Mosley (left) and Marquette University Law School Poll Director Charles Franklin (right) at the recent poll results announcement on Feb. 25, 2026, at the law school. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Margo Kirchner
The "punchline" of the latest Marquette University Law School Poll is that Wisconsin voters just have not "tuned into the races" this year, said poll director Dr. Charles Franklin at a lunch-time event at the law school today. Two-thirds of registered voters participating in the latest poll are still undecided regarding both parties' primary candidates for governor and the Supreme Court race, said Franklin. While the lack of interest in the partisan primary races could be explained by the length of time until they occur in the second half of the year, the nonpartisan Supreme Court election is less than six weeks away. Franklin compared the public's awareness of last year's Supreme Court race to awareness of this year's race. In February 2025, 39% of registered voters polled had heard quite a bit about the April 2025 election between Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel. This year, just 6% of registered voters in the poll conducted between Feb. 11 and 19 reported having heard much about the Supreme Court race between Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judges Chris Taylor and Maria Lazar. Out of likely voters, 15% reported a likely vote for Lazar, 22% reported a likely vote for Taylor, and 62% said they were undecided. Similar percentages of respondents (23% as to Lazar and 21% as to Taylor) had no clear idea what the candidate stands for, while about 60% said they had not heard enough to know. The poll report, which includes public opinion on candidates, elected officials, data centers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, online betting, and other topics, is available here. When Lubar Center Director Derek Mosley asked Franklin how the public stands regarding data centers specifically, Franklin responded: "We don't like 'em." The Supreme Court election is April 7. Franklin said he'll conduct another poll before then. Meanwhile, for voters wanting to know more about the Supreme Court candidates:
Municipal judge says 1923 Supreme Court case bars public use of private beach on Lake Michigan1/28/2026 By Alexandria Staubach A Wisconsin Supreme Court case decided in 1923 controls public access to Lake Michigan’s beaches, says Shorewood Municipal Court Judge (and WJI Executive Director) Margo Kirchner. In a written opinion, Kirchner declined to adopt the argument made by Paul Florsheim, a Shorewood resident and professor at UWM, that the "public trust doctrine" permits walking on beaches between Lake Michigan and lakefront homes. Florsheim, who was ticketed for trespass earlier this year after walking the beach north of Atwater Park, argued that the doctrine permitted public access to the lake’s beaches between the water’s edge and what is known as the ordinary high-water mark, or the area between the water’s edge and the point on the shore where the action of the water leaves a distinct mark. While “the public trust doctrine requires the Wisconsin government to protect the state’s navigable waters for public benefit,” wrote Kirchner, “to the extent discernible, the various activities considered to be navigation or otherwise protected by the Supreme Court for purposes of the public trust doctrine have been solely water-based,” she said. “Navigation,” according to Kirchner’s reading of the relevant case law, does not include walking the beach. According to the opinion, “Florsheim point(ed) to no Wisconsin case holding that an activity occurring out of the water constitutes navigation or other protected activity under the public trust doctrine.” The controlling case Kirchner cited is Doemel v. Jantz. “As a municipal court judge,” wrote Kirchner, “I cannot disregard Doemel, whether rightly or wrongly decided. I must follow it.” You can read the full opinion here.  By Margo Kirchner
The Wisconsin Elections Commission has denied ballot access to District 2 Court of Appeals candidate Christine Hansen because her declaration of candidacy form was notarized by her husband. The WEC this afternoon voted 5-1, with Commissioner Mark Thomsen casting the sole “no” vote. The vote invalidated Hansen’s declaration, which is required for being placed on the ballot. The deadline for filing a new one expired on Jan. 6, 2026. Hansen was one of just two candidates running for the open seat created by Judge Lisa Neubauer's retirement. The WEC’s decision leaves Anthony LoCoco unopposed. A Wisconsin statute provides that notarization of a record is “voidable” if made by a spouse or a notary who has a “direct beneficial interest” in the record. Hansen’s attorney, Chris Meuler, argued that the statute says “voidable,” not “automatically void,” and that the WEC could decide not to void the document. He argued that the WEC should look at the totality of the circumstances, including that all of the information required was on the form and that Hansen’s husband, better than anyone, knew the veracity of statements to which Hansen attested. Meuler also argued that until found void, Hansen’s declaration was still in effect and she should be allowed to correct it. The WEC’s vote essentially voided the notarization and did not allow for correction. The WEC excluded Christine Hansen from the ballot for failure to timely file a properly sworn declaration of candidacy as required by law. In explaining his position, Thomsen said that more than 1,400 voters want Hansen to be on the ballot, the challenge to the document was “hypertechnical,” and Hansen’s husband’s notarization of the document did not provide any monetary benefit to either spouse because she still would have to win the election. Commissioner Carrie Riepl noted that nonattorney notaries must take a test, which covers notary requirements. Attorneys can be notaries but do not have to take such a test, commissioners noted. They indicated that Hansen's husband is an attorney. Hansen’s declaration was challenged by Kyle Schroeder, a voter residing in Waukesha County. The WEC approved for the ballot all other candidates who timely filed their declarations of candidacy and nomination signatures.  By Margo Kirchner
Just seven of 30 judicial spots up for election in April are contested. Declarations of candidacy and nomination signatures were due by the end of business on Jan. 6. Contested races include the Wisconsin Supreme Court seat Rebecca Grassl Bradley will vacate at the end of July 2026. Court of Appeals Judges Chris Taylor and Maria S. Lazar timely filed nomination papers with over 3,000 signatures each. Out of three Court of Appeals seats up for election, the only one up for grabs is the open seat from District 2. Judge Lisa Neubauer is retiring. Anthony LoCoco and Christine Hansen face off to replace her. Incumbents Joe Donald (District 1) and Rachel A. Graham (District 4) are not facing challengers. Just five circuit court races offer voters a choice of candidates. Two of those are open seats because the current judge chose not to run. Three involve challengers to recent appointees of Gov. Tony Evers. (Links below lead to WJI’s “Evers’ judges” posts on those appointees.) Just one race, in Dane County, will require a primary. Contested races:
WJI will be sending in-depth questionnaires to candidates in all contested races, asking them about their qualifications and judicial philosophy, cases they think are important, and why they want to be judge. Look for their answers in February and March blog posts. The primary election is Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2026. The spring election is April 7, 2026.  The Wisconsin State Capitol on Sept. 19, 2025. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach and Margo Kirchner The Wisconsin Assembly's Committee on Corrections on Jan. 7 will hear two bills relating to hygiene products for those in state and county custody. WJI supports and urges passage of both bills. The humane treatment of incarcerated individuals is at the core of Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s mission. Everyone in the government’s custody deserves the ability to care for their bodies, ensuring dignity and promoting the Department of Correction’s administrative rules regarding hygiene. The DOC cannot reasonably require good personal hygiene without providing the basic tools. The bills being heard, AB741 and AB736, move Wisconsin closer to humane treatment of those in custody. AB741 would require the DOC and county jails to provide at least two types of each personal hygiene product on a list in the proposed legislation, including deodorant, antiperspirant, shampoo and conditioner, various soaps and lotions, toothpaste and floss, and shaving cream. The products cannot be sold at more than 125% of the sales price of the product at the highest-grossing retail chain in the state. In addition, at least two varieties of culturally sensitive personal hygiene products such as shampoo, conditioner, and natural hair oil must be provided for different hair types, at no more than 100% of the sales price of the product at the highest-grossing retail chain in the state. The bill also requires the DOC or jail to provide each person in their care with a monthly personal hygiene stipend of $25 to purchase personal hygiene products from the commissary. The bill provides the funding to DOC to cover the stipends. WJI has submitted written testimony in favor of the bill. In November 2024, WJI spoke to an individual at Green Bay Correctional Institution who shared that base pay at GBCI is a mere five cents per hour, someone earning a degree makes 12 cents an hour, and the highest paying positions pay 42 cents an hour. The canteen at a DOC institution is a monopoly. Incarcerated persons cannot price shop. AB 741 first limits the cost of hygiene products to prevent price gouging, yet the merchant still makes its profit. The $25 monthly stipend helps the individual in custody afford those products without spending a week or more of pay. The requirement that facilities provide culturally sensitive products for different physical attributes is important for the people held in DOC care and in jails, many of whom are minority individuals. AB736 would requires the DOC and jails to provide free of charge to anyone in custody with an active menstrual cycle at least three brands of tampons in a variety of absorbencies, three brands of menstrual pads in various absorbencies, and one brand of reusable menstrual cup. The facility would also have to provide a means to sanitize inmate menstrual cups as needed. In WJI's view, AB736 should be regarded as critical legislation for women in the care of the DOC and in jails. As noted above with AB741, hygiene products in prisons are exorbitantly expensive, yet menstrual products are a basic necessity for a woman’s health and dignity. Last year, before DOC renegotiated its canteen contract, a box of tampons cost $2.61 for a pack of eight. That is $0.33 for a single tampon. They came in one size. For those unfamiliar, menstruating women often need at least five tampons per day. That number may double for perimenopausal women, who often experience irregular periods with very heavy blood flow and may need more, larger-flow menstrual products. The Mayo Clinic website recommends changing tampons every four to eight hours. Incarcerated women may spend hours working to afford these products, to hopefully keep blood and discharge from leaking and staining their clothes, which they must also pay to wash. For those who have never experienced a period, imagine working several hours or days to afford toilet paper. Placing feminine hygiene products behind a paywall asks women to choose between safe and hygienic products and homemade alternatives that are unsanitary and may cause infection. If insufficient menstrual products are provided, women may even leave tampons in place for many hours, risking toxic shock syndrome. A carceral system in which women experience restricted access to menstrual products is inhumane. Restricted access to menstrual products undermines a woman’s right to dignity. In November 2025, the Prison Policy Initiative released an analysis of prison rules and sanctions that demonstrates how the carceral system punishes women for menstruating—a physiological process over which they have no control. Rules that govern movement limit access to bathrooms, showers, and laundry services. Rules that govern contraband limit access to tissue paper and its proper disposal or punish women for sharing or trading menstrual products or keeping adequate supplies on hand. PPI identified that in Wisconsin, menstruating women may be disciplined under rules regarding damage to state property (if blood stains affect state-owned items), unauthorized transfer of property or possession of contraband regarding menstrual supplies, poor personal hygiene, and refusal to work or go to school.
As stated by PPI, “(t)here is no ‘safety and security’ interest in denying people the basic sanitary products they need to manage normal bodily functions.” The United Nations Human Rights Council in 2024 underscored that countries have the “responsibility to ensure the full realization of all human rights, including those relating to menstrual hygiene, and must take steps . . . to respond fully to menstrual hygiene and other health care-related needs by all appropriate means, including in particular through the adoption of relevant legislative measures.” A carceral system in which women experience restricted access to menstrual products is inhumane. Restricted access to menstrual products undermines a woman’s right to dignity. WJI has submitted written testimony of the bill. AB741 is sponsored by 19 Democratic Assembly members and four Democratic senators, but no Republicans—yet it has received a hearing in the Republican-controlled committee. AB736 is sponsored by 27 Democratic Assembly members and just one Republican Assembly member, but that Republican, Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah), happens to be the chair of the committee. AB736 is sponsored by nine Democratic senators as well. The Committee on Corrections consists of six Republicans and three Democrats.  By Margo Kirchner
At least seven judicial races are wide open for the April 2026 election. The most prominent races are for the Supreme Court seat currently filled by Justice Rebecca Bradley and the Court of Appeals District 2 seat currently held by Judge Lisa Neubauer. Sitting judges who are not running for reelection were to file a “notification of noncandidacy” by Dec. 26. Failure to file the notice on time does not prohibit the judge from dropping out, but it allows other candidates for that seat a little extra time to gather and file signatures and other required paperwork to run. Judges who have filed notices of noncandidacy for the April 2026 election:
Declarations of candidacy, campaign registration certificates, and nomination papers with valid signatures for 2026 judicial races are due no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 6. If a sitting judge fails to file the notice of noncandidacy and then fails to file the required candidacy documents by Jan. 6, the nomination deadline for others to qualify for that seat extends by 72 hours, to Friday, Jan. 9. Court of Appeals and Milwaukee County Circuit Court candidates must file at least 1,000 and up to 2,000 valid nomination signatures, while circuit candidates in other counties must file at least 200 and up to 400 valid signatures. Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates must file 2,000 to 4,000 valid signatures. The spring election is Tuesday, April 7, 2026. If a primary is necessary, it will be held on Feb. 17. By Margo Kirchner
The administrative warrant held by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers for the arrest of Eduardo Flores-Ruiz at the Milwaukee County Courthouse on April 18, 2025, was simply a form signed by an ICE agent. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Supervisor Anthony Nimtz testified on Monday during the trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan that he signed the Flores-Ruiz administrative warrant, known as an I-200, on April 17. Dugan is charged with interfering with ICE agents’ arrest of Flores-Ruiz at the county courthouse on April 18. The type of warrant ICE officers held is an issue in the case. Nimtz acknowledged during his testimony that ICE officers did not have a type of warrant that allowed them to enter nonpublic areas but instead had the I-200 signed by Nimtz. He added that Milwaukee County officers are directed to not let ICE make arrests in nonpublic portions of the county courthouse. He said that arrests in a courthouse avoid safety risks for ICE officers, as subjects have been screened for weapons when entering the building. According to Nimtz and the copy of the Flores-Ruiz warrant shown in court, an I-200 warrant commands an ICE officer to take the individual into custody for removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Nimtz testified that Flores-Ruiz met two characteristics of ICE policy for arrest: public safety issues and having reentered the country illegally after removal. Noncitizen Flores-Ruiz had previously been ordered to leave the country on Jan. 15, 2013. Nimtz acknowledged that whether a prior order of removal like Flores-Ruiz’s 2013 order is to be reinstated is also up to ICE officers. They can issue warrants of removal—or orders of deportation—using a form known as an I-205. On cross-examination by Dugan's attorney, Nicole Masnica, Nimtz admitted that ICE arrests could use arrest warrants issued by federal judges or administrative law judges, but in Flores-Ruiz’s case the warrant was one signed by him as an ICE supervisor. A field operations worksheet (FOW) about Flores-Ruiz signed by Nimtz on April 17 and shown to the jury on Monday included Flores-Ruiz’s address. Nimtz agreed that the type of warrant he issued could not be used to go into someone’s home. Nimtz acknowledged an error in the FOW paperwork, which directs notice to the police department where an ICE arrest will take place. The FOW for Flores-Ruiz noted district 2, which is on the southside of Milwaukee, rather than district 1 where the county courthouse is located or even district 3 where Ruiz lived. Nimtz said he did not notice the error at the time. Nor did he make sure he had an accurate understanding of the charges in Flores-Ruiz's Milwaukee County court case when he signed the FOW and I-200. Nimtz said that at the time he signed the documents he thought Flores-Ruiz had pending charges for strangulation or suffocation. Nimtz found out only later that the actual charges against Flores-Ruiz were misdemeanor battery charges. He acknowledged on cross-examination that safety protections for ICE officers regarding courthouse arrests would still exist if ICE officers waited to arrest a subject when the subject is leaving the building.  By Margo Kirchner
After Wisconsin Justice Initiative identified some improper charges for documents issued by judges in Wisconsin’s eastern district federal court, Chief Judge Pamela Pepper indicated that all judges in the district have been notified and they “will take (these issues) into consideration.” Federal district judges have broad discretion over whether the public is charged for obtaining copies of the orders and decisions they issue. Documents filed in federal district court cases are available to the public through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records, or “PACER,” system, though generally not for free. For most documents, the system charges 10 cents per page, with a cap at $3.00. Judicial opinions are an exception. Per the fee schedule for PACER, no fees are to be charged for access to “judicial opinions.” That term has been defined as “any document issued by a judge or judges of the court, sitting in that capacity, that sets forth a reasoned explanation for a court’s decision.” Responsibility for determining which documents meet this definition rests with the authoring judge and should be made at the time the document is filed. The judge or staff member when filing an order or decision in the court record indicates whether the document meets the definition. Over several years, WJI staff have incurred charges for certain documents that a reasonable person would think were judicial opinions. Most judicial opinions have been free, as expected, yet charges for judicial opinions occurred often enough to merit raising the issue with the court. WJI wrote to Pepper and the interim clerk of court in July 2025, stating that the categorization of a document as a written opinion “has a large effect on public access and affordability for those monitoring federal cases. Even though documents over 30 pages are capped at $3.00, . . . PACER charges quickly add up," especially for those monitoring cases with extensive dockets and lengthy briefs and opinions. “Improper categorization of judicial opinions may decrease the public’s confidence in the court’s fairness and transparency and cause needless frustration with the court,” WJI wrote. “The public should not be paying for documents that should be free. Such costs impact the openness of the courts and the ability of the public to monitor them.” In litigation brought by a PACER user several years ago challenging his payment for certain judicial opinions, a federal judge in Florida wrote that the authoring judge has the “absolute authority” to decide what court documents constitute judicial opinions. Thus, members of the public seem to have no recourse regarding a court’s failure to categorize a document as a free judicial opinion. WJI asked that the Eastern District’s judges and clerk of court be vigilant in making sure any order filed by a judge is assessed for being a “judicial opinion,” that the chief judge and clerk of court review procedures to ensure that judicial opinions are properly coded in the docketing system, and that court staff are adequately trained on how to docket judicial opinions to make them free to the public. WJI also queried whether the district has a procedure for the public to report improperly docketed judicial opinions in the PACER system and ask for them to be recategorized so they are free to the public. WJI indicated its preference for a default rule “that everything signed by a judge and entered into the case docket should be docketed as a judicial opinion. We argue that anything signed by a judge, plus all court minutes, qualify as judicial or written opinions and should be docketed as such.” Minutes in particular may escape the attention of staff as being judicial opinions. However, the minutes of some judges are quite detailed and contain “reasoned explanation” for the court’s decision, which WJI argues results in them meeting the definition of judicial decisions. “Plus, even for minutes that do not contain reasoned explanations, in light of open court and public access requirements and policies, all minutes should be free to the public.“ Pepper replied that she had shared WJI’s letter with all magistrate and district judges in the Eastern District and that, as noted above, the judges will take WJI’s concerns “into consideration.” WJI argues that a judge should always exercise his or her discretion to grant broader free PACER access, so if there is ever a question about the categorization of a signed document, it should be categorized as a judicial opinion. Have you been charged for a judicial opinion in PACER from the Eastern District or Western District of Wisconsin? If so, please let us know. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed