Monthly Archives: April, 2024

Pro-Palestinian protesters broke windows, barricaded doors and occupied a building at New York's Columbia University overnight after school officials said they would not cede to demands from demonstrators to divest assets from the Israeli government.

The breach of Columbia's Hamilton Hall began around 12:30 a.m. on Tuesday by students and others who have refused to leave the so-called Gaza Solidarity Encampment on the campus grounds, according to published news reports. Hundreds of students created a human chain in front of the building to block campus police. Columbia faculty members were also involved in blocking security.

Video footage showed the demonstrators, many of whom covered their faces with masks, smashing windows and unfurling a Palestinian flag from a window as they chanted "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and "Palestine will live forever." The protesters hung a hand-written sign reading "Hind's Hall" after a six-year-old Palestinian child who was allegedly killed by the Israeli military.

The escalation in the protests came after university officials suspended students who had refused to leave a pro-Palestinian encampment set up about two weeks ago. Columbia President Minouche Shafik has also declined to divest the university's financial holdings from Israel, a key demand of the protesters.

The NYPD, which must get permission from the university to enter the campus, hadn't intervened in the fracas but news reports showed a heavy police presence outside the university's gates.

University officials distributed flyers to students on Monday notifying them that they would not face suspension if they exited the encampment by 2 p.m. on Tuesday, according to published reports. It's not clear what will happen after that deadline. The university has closed school grounds to students who do not live on campus.

The demonstrations are part of a wave of anti-Israel protests that have swept U.S. college campuses over the past week in response to Israel's war in Gaza, which was prompted by the Oct. 7 attack by the terrorist group Hamas that killed 1,200 Israelis and injured many others. Hamas also took hostages, many of whom are still in captivity.

Dozens of arrests have been made at Harvard, Yale and other elite schools as campus police and law enforcement have been called in to take down the make-shift encampments, which violate school policies. Hundreds of people have been arrested.

At Columbia, Jewish students have said they feel unsafe with pro-Palestinian protesters chanting antisemitic slogans and holding signs, which has prompted New York lawmakers to call on the university to clear protesters that some have called "terrorist sympathizers."

“Columbia has surrendered to the radical pro-Hamas antisemitic mob instead of securing campus and protecting Columbia’s Jewish students," U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., said in a statement. "There can be no more extensions or delays. There can be no negotiations with self-proclaimed Hamas terrorists and their sympathizers."

In response to the Columbia protests, Reps. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y. and Richie Torres, D-N.Y., have filed legislation requiring the U.S. Department of Education to establish a third-party "antisemitism monitor" on any U.S. college or university receiving federal funding.

The monitor would have the authority to recommend that universities be stripped of federal funding for not doing enough to crack down on anti-Semitic demonstrations.

"Rising antisemitism on our college campuses is a major concern and we must act to ensure the safety of students," Lawler said. "If colleges will not step up to protect their students, Congress must act."

Four lawmen on the U.S. Marshals Task Force died Monday while serving an arrest warrant in North Carolina.

A marshal and two officers from the Department of Adult Correction were confirmed killed early Monday evening in Charlotte. A Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department officer, one of five others injured in the standoff and shooting, died later in the evening at a hospital.

The graphic scene unfolded as officers attempted to serve the warrant for a felony firearm arrest. A helicopter pilot recording for television decided against filing certain elements of the video footage for broadcast.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Johnny Jennings said Joshua Eyer, the officer who died later at the hospital, “certainly gave his life and dedicated his life to protecting our citizens.” Eyer earlier in April was named officer of the month.

Sam Poloche and Alden Elliott, each with more than a decade of service, were identified as the members of the state Department of Adult Correction who were killed.

At time of publication, the name of the slain marshal had not been made public.

The last marshal killed in the line of duty was Chase White, in Tucson, Ariz., in November 2018.

In a statement posted to its Facebook page, the Police Department called the actions of those involved “heroic” and “a testament to the dangers law enforcement officers face daily.”

“Today, some of our fellow colleagues made the ultimate sacrifice for the safety and protection of our community,” the statement read. “We are grateful for the bravery shown by all officers and outpouring of responses from our neighboring agencies.”

U.S. Marshals have 56 local task forces. Funding is granted, the agency’s website says, often “through initiatives such as the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Forces, and Project Safe Neighborhoods task forces.”

“Today we lost some heroes, that are out simply trying to keep our community safe,” Jennings said. “They knew what they were going into, and still held their own in attempting to apprehend this suspect.”

At least three people were in the home when lawmen arrived with the warrant. One is dead, two others – a woman and a 17-year-old boy – were being questioned.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s pro-life groups are unified in telling the Wisconsin Supreme Court it is not the court’s job to create a right to abortion.

Wisconsin Right to Life, Wisconsin Family Action and Pro-Life Wisconsin all filed a joint brief with the court that argues there is no right to abortion and add that if there is to be one, that decision is up to lawmakers.

“The Supreme Court is not the proper venue to create health and safety law nor the proper mechanism to add a constitutional amendment. The legislature is the proper body to weigh the policy considerations and create law, not the court,” Wisconsin Family Action president Christine File said.

“Finding a right to abortion in our state constitution, where there clearly is none, would be the most extreme form of legislating from the bench,” Dan Miller, state director at Pro-Life Wisconsin, said. “The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled in Dobbs that there is no federal constitutional right to abortion. Nothing in Wisconsin’s constitution or the history of our state would remotely suggest such a right. We implore the Wisconsin Supreme Court to reject Planned Parenthood’s radical and self-serving plans.”

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin in February asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide if there is a right to abortion in the state.

The Supreme Court has accepted the case, and the filing from Wisconsin’s pro-life groups is in response to that case.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty also filed a brief in the case.

“There is no right to an abortion in Wisconsin’s Constitution. No judge, justice, or lawyer should be creating policy for Wisconsinites out of thin air. Reversing Roe v. Wade through the Dobbs decision rightfully placed the abortion issue back where it should have been all along – in the halls of state legislatures,” WILL Deputy Counsel Luke Berg said. “That’s where the debate and conversation must remain.”

The court is expecting responses from everyone involved in the case by today. The court has not said when it expects to hear oral arguments.

Federal prosecutors on Monday began laying out what they say is election fraud in 2016 by former President Donald Trump.

Trump, 77, is the first former U.S. president to be charged with a felony. Prosecutors and defense attorneys presented their opening statements to the jury of five women and seven men.

Prosecutors said Trump corrupted the 2016 election, The Hill reported on Monday.

"This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up," Manhattan prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said. "The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election, then covered it up."

Trump will spend four days a week in court in New York for the next six to eight weeks on state charges that he disguised hush money payments to two women as legal expenses during the 2016 election. Judge Juan Merchan has not scheduled trial days on Wednesdays.

On Monday, his defense attorneys said he had done nothing wrong.

"President Trump is innocent," Trump attorney Todd Blanche told the jury. "He did not commit any crimes. The Manhattan district attorney's office should never have brought this case."

Trump pleaded not guilty in April 2023 to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

Merchan's gag order remains in place, ordered last month before the trial began. Trump, the nation's 45th president, is prohibited from making or directing others to make public statements about witnesses concerning their potential participation or about counsel in the case or about court staff, district attorney staff or family members of staff.

Prosecutors said Trump's $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels was falsely covered up as a business expense, that the money was to help keep her quiet. Prosecutors say they had a sexual encounter.

Prosecutors also said Trump paid Karen McDougal, a Playboy magazine "Playmate," and reimbursed then attorney and fixer Michael Cohen to cover it up.

"This was a planned, coordinated, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior," Colangelo said. "It was election fraud, pure and simple."

Reuters reported that Blanche countered that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg should have never brought the case to trial.

"There's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election" Blanche said. "It's called democracy. They put something sinister on this idea, as if it's a crime."

Prosecutors say Trump falsified internal records kept by his company, hiding the true nature of payments that involve Daniels ($130,000), McDougal ($150,000), and Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen ($420,000). Prosecutors say the money was logged as legal expenses, not reimbursements. In a reversal of past close relationships now pivotal to the prosecution against him, both Cohen and Daniels are expected to testify.

Under New York state law, falsifying business records in the first degree is a Class E felony that carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison.

Even if convicted and sentenced to jail, Trump could continue his campaign to return to the White House. He's facing the Democratic incumbent who ousted him in 2020, 81-year-old President Joe Biden.

Trump faces 88 felony charges spread across four cases in Florida, Georgia, New York and Washington.Trump has said the criminal and civil trials he faces are designed to keep him from winning the 2024 rematch versus Biden.

(The Center Square) – Another local prosecutor declined to bring charges against a Republican state lawmaker in a campaign funding raising case.

Waukesha County’s District Attorney Sue Opper said she would not file charges against state Rep. Janel Brandtjen. But Opper said she is not clearing Brandtjen in the case.

“I am simply concluding that I cannot prove charges against her. While the intercepted communications, such as audio recordings may be compelling in the court of public opinion, they are not in a court of law,” Opper said.

Wisconsin’s Ethics Commission suggested charges against Brandtjen and a handful of others in a case that investigators say saw them move money around to allegedly skirt Wisconsin’s limits on campaign donations.

Opper said the Ethics Commission investigation was based on “reasonable suspicion and then probable cause.” But she added that those “burdens are substantially lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt which is necessary for a criminal conviction.”

Opper said the Ethic Commission could pursue a civil case against Brandtjen and the others. She also opened the door to other investigations.

“This decision does not clear Rep. Brandtjen of any wrongdoing, there is just not enough evidence to move forward to let a factfinder decide,” Opper said.

She’s the fourth local prosecutor in the state to decide against filing charges.

(The Center Square) – Judge Brad Schmiel says he’s not going to repeat the mistakes of the last supreme court race in Wisconsin.

Schimel told News Talk 1130 WISN’s Jay Weber he isn’t going to politicize the race like liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz, and he’s not going to ignore his campaign like former conservative Justice Dan Kelly.

Schimel said he can run for the court next year without injecting Republican politics into the court.

“I've had plenty of people on our side that suggested ‘Brad, you just got to do the same.’ No. I cannot do that,” Schimel said. “We still have to respect the rule of law. We still have to respect the Constitution. We still have to respect judicial ethics. I'm not going to go out and promise people what I'm going to do. But I will promise people that they can look at my record, and they know that I've done the right thing. That I have put the law above politics. I put the law above my own personal opinions.”

Republicans roundly criticized Protasiewicz for her comments about abortion and Wisconsin’s state legislative maps during the 2023 campaign.

Republicans also roundly criticized former Justice Dan Kelly, who lost to Protasiewicz, for his perceived lack of campaigning.

“We couldn’t have put a brighter, more reliable conservative on the Wisconsin Supreme Court than Dan Kelly,” Schmiel added. “But, with the campaign there were some mistakes that were made.”

Chief among them, Schimel said, was Kelly’s decision to reject money from the Wisconsin Republican Party that could have gone toward TV ads.

Schimel said that left Kelly at a huge disadvantage.

“Janet Protasiewicz took almost $10 million from the state [Democratic] Party. Dan took the money too late. He realized ‘Oh my gosh, I'm going to get burned on this.’ By the time he took it the best ad buys were gone, and he wasn't able to spend the money effectively,” Schimel said. “He spent $585,000 on TV. That was what his campaign spent. Janet Protasiewicz’s campaign spent $10.5 million. When you are out-spent 20-to-one on TV, you better just start writing your concession speech.”

Schmiel vowed not to be outspent this time around.

“I have made it clear. I will take all legal, ethical contributions to my campaign because we have to win,” Schimel said. “Because we have to stop standing on this hill of principle that we end up dying on.”

Several U.S. House Republicans introduced multiple pieces of legislation to defund National Public Radio following new allegations of “leftist propaganda” from the taxpayer-funded news source.

House Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good, R-Va., Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., and Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., introduced similar legislation to prohibit federal funding for NPR, including barring local public radio stations from utilizing money from federal grants to “purchase content or pay dues to NPR.”

Over the years, Republicans have made multiple attempts to defund NPR, citing similar complaints. The latest outrage follows an editorial from former NPR Editor Uri Berliner, who criticized the news source claiming it had "lost America's trust."

Berliner criticized NPR’s coverage of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the COVID-19 lab leak theory and of Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop as examples of the outlet’s left-leaning bias. He described “the most damaging development at NPR: the absence of viewpoint diversity.”

Banks took aim at NPR’s new Chief Executive Officer Katherine Maher, who has expressed criticism of the First Amendment in efforts to combat “misinformation.”

“NPR’s new CEO is a radical, left-wing activist who doesn’t believe in free speech or objective journalism. Hoosiers shouldn’t be writing her paychecks. Katherine Maher isn’t qualified to teach an introductory journalism class, much less capable of responsibly spending millions of American tax dollars,” said Banks.

The Indiana congressman continued by describing the news outlet as a “liberal looney bin” under prior leadership, drawing attention to a systemic problem.

“It’s time to pull the plug on this national embarrassment. Congress must stop spending other people’s hard-earned money on low grade propaganda,” Banks lamented.

Good was a bit more reserved in his take-down of the news outlet.

“It is bad enough that so many media outlets push their slanted views instead of reporting the news, but it is even more egregious for hardworking taxpayers to be forced to pay for it. National Public Radio has a track record of promoting anti-American narratives on the taxpayer dime,” Good said in a news release. “My legislation would ensure no taxpayer dollars are used to fund the woke, leftist propaganda of National Public Radio.”

Tenney, a former newspaper owner and publisher, accused NPR of using taxpayer funds to “manipulate” and promote a political agenda controlled by “left-wing activists.”

"I understand the importance of non-partisan, balanced media coverage, and have seen first-hand the left-wing bias in our news media. These disturbing reports out of NPR confirm what many have known for a long time: NPR is using American taxpayer dollars to manipulate the news and lie to the American people on behalf of a political agenda. It’s past time the American people stop footing the bill for NPR, and the partisan, left-wing activists that control it," Tenney said in a news release.

The lawmakers cited the political make-up of the NPR’s D.C. news team, which they say includes 87 registered Democrats and no registered Republicans.

The Center Square uncovered records showing that Maher exclusively donated to Democratic political candidates before her role at NPR. Her largest donation of $1,500 was given to Virginia Congressman Tom Perriello in 2017, and most frequently donated to Virginia state Sen. Jennifer Carroll Foy, in the amounts of $25 over nine times.

Good underscored the original purpose for the publicly funded news outlet, which he says was “created to be an educational news source and to ‘speak with many voices.’” He added that NPR has now become “a primary outlet for advancing biased and radical media coverage of political and social issues.”

(The Center Square) – One of the biggest critics of Wisconsin’s election administrator says no one should be threatening her and says threats don’t help fix election integrity issues.

State Rep. Janel Brandtjen, R-Menomonee Falls, on Tuesday offered her thoughts after the Wisconsin Elections Commission confirmed elections administrator Meagan Wolfe is receiving extra security protection.

"Threatening Administrator Meagan Wolfe, or any election official, is unacceptable and counterproductive. Venting frustrations on individuals like Wolfe, clerks, or poll workers is not only illegal but also harmful to rebuilding trust in our elections,” Brandtjen said. “Threats only undermine our republic and empower the courts and media. It's essential to address any concerns about election processes through legal channels. Threats have no place in our democracy.”

Brandtjen has been one of Wisconsin’s loudest critics of Wolfe. She led hearings as far back as 2021 into Wolfe’s role in the 2020 election. Brandtjen also led the push to get Wolfe removed from the Elections Commission.

“Wolfe’s term has indeed expired, and according to Wisconsin Statutes 15.61(1)(b)1, she should be removed, but Republicans are too worried about the press or too compromised to follow existing law.” Brandtjen said.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission on Monday clarified that Wolfe is receiving extra security but refused to offer any details.

“The Wisconsin Elections Commission has had productive conversations about safety and security with state leadership, including the governor’s office, which is tasked with approving security measures for state government officials,” WEC spokesperson Riley Vetterkind said in a statement. “Those conversations have resulted in additional security measures being approved for Administrator Wolfe and the WEC when the need arises.”

Brandtjen on Tuesday blamed Wisconsin Republicans, and once again blamed Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, for Wolfe’s continued time on the Elections Commission.

“It's disappointing that Sen. Dan Knodl and Rep. Scott Krug, chairs of the election committees, have not exercised their investigative and subpoena powers. This inaction has allowed the neglect of essential laws, such as providing ballots to individuals declared incompetent, lack of checks in military ballot requests, an insecure online system, and improper guidance on voting for homeless individuals without proper documentation,” she said. “The Legislature, particularly Speaker Vos' control, is responsible for the frustration caused by election irregularities due to their inaction.”

Wisconsin’s local election managers have reported an uptick in threats and angry rhetoric since the 2020 election, and some local election offices have taken extra precautions. But there haven’t been any cases in Wisconsin where someone has acted on an election threat.

(The Center Square) – There is now a legal challenge to Gov. Tony Evers’ 400-year school funding veto.

The WMC Litigation Center on Monday asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take up their challenge to the governor’s summer veto that increased per-pupil funding for the next four centuries.

“At issue is Gov. Evers’ use of the so-called ‘Vanna White’ or ‘pick-a-letter’ veto,” the group said in a statement. “The governor creatively eliminated specific numbers in a portion of the budget bill that was meant to increase the property tax levy limit for school districts in the 2023-24 and 2024-25 fiscal years. By striking individual digits, the levy limit would instead be increased from the years 2023 to 2425 – or four centuries into the future.”

The WMC Litigation Center is an affiliate of Wisconsin Manufactures & Commerce (WMC), the combined state chamber and manufacturers’ association.

Litigation Center Executive Director Scott Rosenow said while Wisconsin’s governor has an incredibly powerful veto pen, there are limits.

“No Wisconsin governor has the authority to strike individual letters or digits to form a new word or number, except when reducing appropriations,” Rosenow said. “This action is not only unconstitutional on its face, but it is undemocratic because this specific partial veto allows school districts to raise property taxes for the next 400 years without voter approval.”

Wisconsin lawmakers and voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1990 that put limits on the governor’s veto power.

Rosenow and the WMC Litigation Center say the governor’s veto goes beyond those limits.

The legal challenge also raises the constitutional issue that all state spending has to originate with, and be approved by, the legislature.

“In no uncertain terms, 402 years is not less than or part of the two-year duration approved by the Legislature – it is far more,” concluded Rosenow. “The governor overstepped his authority with this partial veto, at the expense of taxpayers, and we believe oversight by the Court is necessary.”

The WMC Litigation Center is asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case as quickly as possible.

Jury selection is set to begin Monday in the first-ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president.

Former President Donald Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts related to charges he paid hush money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels through a lawyer and covered it up as a legal expense before being elected president.

Trump has attempted to delay the start of the New York state trial several times, including three longshot tactics judges rejected this week.

What charges does Trump face in the New York hush money case?

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records related to money paid to Daniels and another woman, former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Bragg has alleged Trump broke New York law when he falsified with the intent to commit or conceal another crime.

Prosecutors allege Trump falsified internal records kept by his company, hiding the true nature of payments that involve Daniels ($130,000), McDougal ($150,000), and Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen ($420,000). Prosecutors allege the money was logged as legal expenses, not reimbursements. Both Cohen and Daniels are expected to testify.

Cohen is expected to be a key witness in the trial. Daniels has said she expects to testify.

Former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., Bragg's predecessor, did not bring the case to trial.

What happens on Monday?

Prosecutors, defense attorneys and Donald Trump are expected to be present when the trial before Judge Juan Merchan gets started Monday. The first step will be picking a jury, a process that could take a week or more depending on how things progress. The trial is expected to last six to eight weeks.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys will select 12 jurors and six alternates from a pool of potentially hundreds of people. Each juror will answer 42 questions designed to determine if they can be impartial in the high-profile trial of a polarizing former president. The jurors will remain anonymous because of security concerns.

Once a jury is seated, it's on to opening statements where prosecutors and defense attorneys will get to address the jury about what they plan to show during the trial.

What is Trump's defense to the charges?

Trump has maintained he did nothing wrong and has accused Bragg of bringing a politically motivated case involving conduct in 2016 during a presidential election year as Trump faces incumbent Joe Biden in a rematch of the 2020 election.

Trump has spoken out against the judge, the district attorney and other involved in the case repeatedly. Trump's comments prompted a gag order from the judge who said Trump can't talk publicly about certain people involved in the case and their families.

"The White House Thugs should not be allowed to have these dangerous and unfair Biden Trials during my campaign for President. All of them, civil and criminal, could have been brought more than three years ago. It is an illegal attack on a Political Opponent. It is Communism at its worst, and Election Interference at its Best. No such thing has ever happened in our Country before," Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social this week. "On Monday I will be forced to sit, GAGGED, before a HIGHLY CONFLICTED & CORRUPT JUDGE, whose hatred for me has no bounds. All of these New York and D.C. 'Judges' and Prosecutors have the same MINDSET. Nobody but this Soros Prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, wanted to take this ridiculous case. All legal scholars say it is a sham. BIDEN'S DOJ IS RUNNING THE CASE. Just think of it, these animals want to put the former President of the United States (who got more votes than any sitting President!), & the PARTY'S REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, IN JAIL, for doing absolutely nothing wrong. It is a RUSH TO THE FINISH. SO UNFAIR!"

Will Trump take the stand?

That's not clear yet. Trump said last month that he'd be willing to testify at trial if needed.

Could Trump go to jail?

It's too earlier to tell what will happen if Trump is convicted. Under New York state law, falsifying business records in the first degree is a Class E felony that carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison.

Trump's age and lack of any prior criminal convictions could work in his favor at sentencing if he's convicted. His attacks on the judge could have the opposite effect at sentencing. Before sentencing, the judge would look at sentencing guidelines, recommendations from prosecutors and any other pre-sentence reports.

In late March, Trump said that he wasn't worried about a conviction when asked if he thought a conviction could hurt his chances of returning to the White House.

"It could also make me more popular because the people know it's a scam," he said. "It's a Biden trial, there is no trial, there's a Biden trial."

Whatever happens during the trial, Trump will be protected by the U.S. Secret Service.

Even if convicted and sentenced to jail, Trump could continue his campaign to re-take the White House.

"The Constitution does not bar felons from serving as President," said Richard Hasen, professor of law and political science at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Trump could not pardon himself from any state charges, Hasen said.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s next supreme court race could be even more contentious and even more expensive than the last one.

Liberal Justice Anne Walsh Bradley on Thursday surprised the state when she announced she will not run for re-election next year.

"My decision has not come lightly. It is made after careful consideration and reflection. I know I can do the job and do it well. I know I can win re-election, should I run. But it's just time to pass the torch, bring fresh perspectives to the court," Walsh Bradley said in a statement.

She is one of Wisconsin’s longest serving justices, serving her third 10-year term on the court.

“In the 177-year history of the court, only four justices have served longer than my length of service,” she wrote.

Walsh Bradley’s decision means the next election will be open.

Former Republican attorney general, and current Waukesha County judge, Brad Schimel has already jumped into the race. There aren’t any declared Democrats yet.

Schimel on Thursday said Walsh Bradley’s decision isn’t changing anything for him.

“From the beginning of my campaign, I made it clear that I’m not just running against one person, I’m running against this Court’s leftist majority,” Schimel said. “I wish Justice Ann Walsh Bradley well in retirement after decades of public service. I look forward to continuing the fight to bring integrity and respect for the Constitution back to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.”

Wisconsin’s last race for the supreme court, in April of 2023, set records for spending. The race between Justice Janet Protasiewicz and former Justice Dan Kelly cost more than $56 million. That makes the 2023 Wisconsin race the most expensive judicial race in American history. Many court observers and politicos in Wisconsin say the 2025 race could be just as expensive, or even more expensive.

Protasiewicz’s victory flipped the Wisconsin Supreme Court to a 4-3 liberal majority for the first time in 15 years.