Evers' judges: Benjamin R. Jones

​​"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: Benjamin R. Jones
 
Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court
 
Appointment date: May 23, 2025, to a term ending July 31, 2026
 
Education:
Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison
Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison
High School – John F. Kennedy High School, Bloomington, Minnesota
 
Recent legal employment:
April 2017-present – Chief legal counsel, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin
June 2012-April 2017 – Associate attorney, Weld Riley, S.C., Eau Claire, Wisconsin
 
Bar and administrative memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
 
General character of practice:
I currently serve as chief legal counsel for the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and Department of Public Instruction (DPI). In that role, I supervise a staff of attorneys, investigators, and support staff within the DPI Office of Legal Services. I provide legal advice to the State Superintendent, appointed officers, directors and staff in all areas of the law applicable to a large state agency. I appear for and represent the DPI in administrative hearings and, when necessary, circuit and appellate court. I draft, review, and interpret proposed legislation and administrative rules. I also review and adjudicate appeals submitted to the SPI, including expulsion decisions, pupil discrimination appeals, School District Boundary Appeal Board decisions, statutory waiver requests, and all other administrative appeals.
 
Describe typical clients:
My client is the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, led by the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction. In private practice, I specialized in school law and labor and employment law. My typical clients were local government agencies, including school districts, counties and municipalities, as well as large private employers.
 
Number of cases tried to verdict: Numerous administrative hearings in private practice and on behalf of DPI.
 
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:
Koschkee v. Evers, 2018 WI 82; Koschkee v. Taylor, 2019 WI 76
Petitioners, represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, filed an original action petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) and the Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers (SPI) were required to comply with 2017 Wisconsin Act 57, known as the "REINS Act." The Act requires the governor to approve all administrative rules proposed by the SPI before promulgation. The SPI argued that Article X of the Wisconsin Constitution prohibits any other officer from being in a superior position of authority in the supervision of public instruction, so that the governor cannot have veto authority over the SPI's proposed rules.
 
I was primary counsel for the SPI and DPI from the time the original action petition was filed in November 2017 until the court's decision in 2019. After the petition was filed, Governor Scott Walker ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to represent the SPI and DPI. The SPI and DPI intended to argue the REINS Act was unconstitutional as applied to the SPI. But the DOJ disagreed and informed the SPI and DPI that the DOJ would advance the opinion of the Attorney General, arguing that the REINS Act was constitutional as applied.
 
The DPI and SPI filed a motion to deny substitution of counsel and to disqualify the attorney general from appearing on behalf of the DPI and SPI. The DOJ filed a cross-motion to strike myself and then Chief Legal Counsel Ryan Nilsestuen from the case. I drafted the brief in support of the motion and represented the SPI and DPI at oral argument before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The court held that the SPI and DPI must be allowed counsel that would represent their position, recognizing there were ethical implications for attorneys that fail to represent the position of their client, and that the Attorney General did not have power to act as a gatekeeper as to whether a constitutional officer could defend their authority in court.
 
Following the court's decision, I continued as primary counsel as the case proceeded to a decision on the merits. In first accepting the original action petition, the court implied it was likely to overturn its prior case decided on identical facts in Coyne v. Walker, 2016 WI 38 . . . . However, while the court ultimately determined rulemaking authority was a legislative power that the legislature could constrain as it saw fit, the court upheld the superiority of the SPI's vested constitutional executive authority. As determined in Thompson v. Craney, 199 Wis. 2d 674 . . . the SPI remains in a superior position to all other officers in the supervision of public instruction.
 
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
I have represented clients in front of the Equal Rights and Unemployment Insurance
Divisions of the Department of Workforce Development, the Wisconsin Employment
Relations Commission, and in front of administrative law judges for appeals filed under
Wis. Stat. s. 227.42. I have also represented clients under investigation by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
 
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
In private practice, I represented local governmental units in collective bargaining and all
areas of employment, municipal, and administrative law. I have represented clients in
multiple mediations involving discrimination complaints, wage and insurance disputes,
and contractual disputes. I currently advise the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public
Instruction and the Department of Public Instruction on all areas of law applicable to a
state educational agency.
 
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None listed
 
Previous runs for public office: None listed
 
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: None listed
 
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Wisconsin School Attorneys Association, 2012-present
National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification, 2017-present
National Council of State Education Attorneys, 2017-present
Chippewa Valley Society for Human Resource Management, director of Legal and Legislative Affairs, 2014-2017
American Red Cross Northwest Wisconsin, board member, 2014-2017
 
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
In law school, I volunteered with the IRS Volunteer Tax Assistance program to offer free basic tax return preparation for low income tax filers. I also tutored middle school students in the Goodman Community Center while in law school. In private practice, I volunteered as the Director of Legal and Legislative Affairs for the Chippewa Valley Society for Human Resource Management and as a board member of the American Red Cross Northwest Wisconsin Chapter.
 
Why I want to be a judge:
I have committed my professional life to public service. As a judge, with the skills I have demonstrated and refined during my legal career, I will advance equity and justice for the people of Dane County and Wisconsin.
 
I first realized how highly I value public service while representing school districts in private practice. Almost universally, every individual I interacted with in my representation of schools wanted to do their best to improve the lives of children and the broader community. By extension, I knew that my work to counsel schools served a greater public good.
 
That focus on the public good drew me to leave private practice to represent the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and the Department of Public Instruction (DPI). When I began working for then Superintendent Tony Evers in 2017, Wisconsin public education had been under assault for years. Superintendent Evers stood firm in his defense of Wisconsin public schools, the importance of advancing equity in education, and his belief that government played a necessary role in improving peoples’ lives.
 
The legal issues that arose in that environment were novel, complex, and often high stakes. At one point, I successfully argued in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that Superintendent Evers must be able to pick his own attorney to defend his office’s constitutional authority. Under these difficult circumstances, my work was and continues to be meaningful and rewarding knowing that the focus is on what is best for children and Wisconsin.
 
As my commitment to public service has grown, so has my understanding of my strengths and competencies as an attorney. In my work as chief legal counsel, I advise the SPI and DPI on all areas of the law and within a broad range of contexts. On any given day, I may meet with our licensing team to discuss a teacher accused of sexual misconduct with a student, discuss with the deputy superintendent whether a school district provided a student with due process, strategize with the school voucher team to defend against accusations of improper rulemaking, or any number of unique legal issues. Each task requires diligent preparation, an ability to quickly identify relevant facts, a nuanced understanding of how the relevant law applies, an understanding of the SPI’s vision, and the anticipation of political ramifications.
 
Above all other considerations, my work requires a deep understanding that my legal advice will have real-life impact on students, families, and their communities. To make sure that impact is equitable and positive, I am constantly vigilant for any prejudice or bias in my own work or the work of the DPI. For example, I have reformed the DPI’s teacher licensing and pupil nondiscrimination appeal processes to incorporate data, reduce subjectivity, and ensure these processes serve all children.
 
My ability to quickly and completely distill relevant information and apply the law while actively working to eliminate bias and incorporate all relevant context into my decision making will make me an effective and impactful 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.
The case that had the most significant impact on the people of Wisconsin is Dobbs v.
Jackson Women's Health Org., 213 L. Ed. 2d 545, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022). This case illustrates the negative outcomes that result when justices adjudicate in a self-imposed vacuum, stripping out the nuance necessary to render reasoned and just decisions.
 
A majority of the Court in Dobbs decided to eliminate the constitutional protections recognized in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973). The Court in Roe recognized that a state can regulate abortion in many ways, but a women’s right to choose prior to viability is where the Constitution limits state interference. The Roe Court came to that conclusion in large part because it considered the context of the procedure, how it impacts women’s lives and freedoms, how interference in the decision involves an extreme invasion of privacy, and that ultimately what is at stake is a woman’s control over her own body and medical care.
 
The Court’s analysis in Dobbs simply disregards that context in favor of what white men thought was proper in the 1800s. That willful ignorance leads to the predictable consequences women across the country now experience. A state can impose its own choice on a woman whose doctor detects severe birth defects in a not-yet-viable fetus, a woman who does not have the financial security to care for a child, a woman whose rape caused her pregnancy, or a woman who simply does not want to have a child. And the impacts are disproportionately severe on historically marginalized communities, particularly women of color.
 
The impact of this Court’s opinion will not stop at women’s reproductive rights. The Dobbs majority attempts to isolate the issue of abortion because it involves a “profound moral question.” In his concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas reveals how thin the majority opinion’s assurance is by concluding the Due Process Clause does not secure “any substantive rights.” This threatens constitutional protections for privacy, marriage, and consensual relationships, protections the public may no longer be able to take for granted.
 
Dobbs also weakens stare decisis. The Roe decision stood for fifty years. Though the circumstances and rationale articulated by the Roe court remain as relevant today, Dobbs disregarded this precedent and severely undermined the integrity of the Court. If the composition of the Court is now what defines a fundamental constitutional right rather than precedent, then how is the Court any different than a legislative body? Does the Court now simply represent the
political majority, rather than defend the constitutional rights of everyone, particularly those without the power to defend themselves?
 
The Dobbs majority sacrificed the integrity of the Court in order to strip fundamental liberties from women. With a severe and immediate negative impact on Wisconsin women and their families that will continue to be felt for years to come, Dobbs is the worst decision for the people of Wisconsin in at least the past 25 years.
 
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
Sonia Sotomayor
I admire Justice Sonia Sotomayor for her judicial philosophy. She has described her philosophy as “fidelity to the law”, which can mean different things to different people. To Sotomayor, that means that the law must be considered in context and as applied to real people.
 
This can contrast with the approach of other justices. For example, in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 127 S. Ct. 2738, 168 L. Ed.
2d 508 (2007), Justice John Roberts asserts that “[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” This might make for a catchy sound bite, but it ignores the entire history of racism in this country and how it continues to shape modern institutions and society.
 
Instead, “fidelity to the law” is better described by Justice Sotomayor, who said in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary, “[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” 572 U.S. 291, 381, 134
S. Ct. 1623, 1676, 188 L. Ed. 2d 613 (2014) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
 
This philosophy guides my own approach to the law. The law should be considered within the full relevant history and context of American experience, so that it can serve real people.
 
Ann Walsh Bradley
I admire Ann Walsh Bradley for her preparation, insight, and judgment when applying the law. These qualities were apparent to me when I argued in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Justice Bradley asked meaningful, relevant questions that struck at the heart of the matter in question. She had clearly studied the briefs and understood the legal question in front of the court and the applicable facts, and had a nuanced understanding of the parties’ arguments.
 
Beyond her own understanding, her questions and responses indicated an equal understanding of her colleagues’ opinions and concerns. She asked questions not just to confirm or announce her own thoughts, but to assist her colleagues’ understanding of the law. As an advocate, I felt understood and respected, which should be an objective of every judge or justice hearing a case.
 
Richard Niess
I admire former Dane County Circuit Court Judge Richard Niess for his ability to command a courtroom through a combination of attention, empathy, humor, and decisiveness. I interned for Judge Niess during law school and also argued a motion in front of Judge Niess while representing then Superintendent Tony Evers. Like Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, Judge Niess was always well prepared, actively engaged with litigants to ensure they knew they were heard and understood, disarmed difficult conversations with dry – and appropriately restrained – humor, and was sincere in every word he said in court.
 
As a judge, I hope to pattern my own demeanor and philosophy off of these esteemed and accomplished jurists.
 
The proper role of a judge:
The proper role of a judge is as a public servant. As a public servant, a judge should be humble, understanding that ego and pride only interfere with a judge’s obligation to the public. A humble judge is able to allow the attorneys in a case to educate the judge on the issues relevant to the case.
 
Similarly, a judge should have the appropriate temperament to be able to effectively communicate with counsel, the parties, jurors and witnesses, and to effectively consider all relevant information and deliver an appropriate disposition. This is much easier said than done, particularly when disputes involve matters of immense importance to the litigants, intense emotions, high stakes, and an often long and difficult case history.
 
I know how difficult these kinds of interactions can be, because I engage with them on a regular basis in my role with the Department of Public Instruction. I communicate with students who have been victims of sexual assault or grooming at the hands of teachers, families who are appealing an expulsion decision, and community members concerned with a school district’s adoption of a controversial new policy. These are all conversations that require patience, an even temperament, empathy, courtesy, active listening, and the ability to then clearly articulate how the law applies to those concerns. I am well tested and confident in my ability to effectively navigate these difficult conversations, including in a courtroom.
 
A judge must actively strive to be an objective decision maker, to ensure the judge’s decisions are equitable and advance justice. This requires effort and constant attention. In my current representation, I am constantly examining my advice and decision making for bias, developing systems that reduce subjective analysis to reduce or eliminate that bias. In the same way, judges should examine the system of justice they are a part of to identify bias, and work to develop systems, policies, and strategies to eliminate those biases.
 
A judge has to be aware they are a judge, both while on the bench and off. A judge is a high profile public figure and must represent the bench at all times. That judge must be committed to the independence and integrity of the bench, avoiding conflicts of interest, upholding the highest ethical expectations, ensuring the public’s confidence in the judge and the judiciary by extension.
 
A judge must also be an actively engaged member of their community, to best be able to understand the concerns and challenges members of that community face in their lives. Without an understanding of the community, it is easier to disregard the real impact that decisions have on members of that community. That connection allows for empathy, understanding, and better- informed decisions to advance justice.
 
Finally, a judge must be accountable. A judge should accept that they can be wrong, which allows a judge to maintain an open mind when hearing disputes and maintain the public’s confidence that the judiciary is committed to the rule of law, rather than the egos and pride of individual judges.

---