On April 1, 2025, Wisconsin elected Judge Susan Crawford to its Supreme Court in a high voter turnout race that captured national attention, setting records for campaign spending. As a key battleground state, the outcome was seen as a bellwether for the broader political landscape, a test of the American public’s impression of President Trump’s policies. While all judicial elections in Wisconsin are nonpartisan, retiring Justice Anne Walsh Bradley is considered a liberal justice on the Court. This contested election results in the Court’s balance remaining the same, with Judge Crawford set to join the Court on August 1, 2025. Eimer Stahl attorney Teresa Manion, who served as a law clerk to Justice Brian Hagedorn, offers her perspective on the Court and explores the potential impact of this election on Wisconsin law.
Q: You came to Eimer Stahl from a long clerkship at the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Tell us what that was like, what your relationship with the different chambers was, and how your experience informs your practice today.
A. Clerking is probably one of the most humbling and incredible jobs you can have as an attorney. As a young lawyer, you have the unique opportunity to help write opinions that shape the law—hopefully for years to come. It was never hard to find motivation because you saw and understood the importance of your work every day.
Collaborating with Justice Hagedorn for four years was an incredible experience. I had the honor to serve as a law clerk from August 2019 to July 2023, a period that saw the Court tackle, among the run-of-the-mill civil and criminal cases, issues it had not seen in a century with the COVID-19 pandemic, issues it typically only sees at most once a decade with the first round of redistricting litigation, and contentious election litigation. I vividly remember sitting in Justice Hagedorn's chambers on my thirtieth birthday, talking through how he wanted to decide a case, thinking, “this decision is going to shape the law in Wisconsin for years to come.” It’s very demanding work—sometimes even more so than private practice—because the stakes can be very high. For example, the Court was tasked with determining the validity of Wisconsin’s COVID-19 stay-at-home order which impacted every citizen of our state. While clerking I learned about niche areas of Wisconsin law, how to think about law from first principles, and grew as a writer and communicator.
Collaborating with other law clerks was invaluable. While some of the opinions on the Court are contentious, prioritizing relationships with clerks from other chambers was rewarding. I enjoyed meeting and working alongside talented young lawyers. One of my favorite parts of the clerkship were the intense discussions and debates among clerks as we sorted through the cases. Often these discussions forced me to hear out and think through different perspectives.
The skills I learned while clerking directly impact my practice today. The back-and-forth discussion in chambers and with other clerks shaped me into a stronger litigator. It taught me the importance of seeking out peers and asking, “Are you seeing anything I’m not?” And it forced me to consider seriously the other side of arguments. Today, I know to ask those questions early and often to ensure we are making the sharpest legal arguments possible. I also improved my writing during my clerkship. Between writing bench memos and draft opinions, I learned to persuade while explaining the law in a way that lower courts and practitioners could use in daily practice. Finally, after years of seeing firsthand what justices look for in an argument or brief, I approach cases with that perspective in mind.
Q: The jurisprudence of Justice Brian Hagedorn has been the subject of much discussion over the years. What is it?
A. Jurisprudentially, Justice Hagedorn is a textualist and an originalist. He focuses on the text of statutes and constitutional provisions, seeking to interpret them based on their meaning at the time they were enacted. For example, if a statute was passed in 1925, he would look at what a word meant in 1925, not today, especially if its meaning has changed over time. Similarly, when interpreting the federal and the Wisconsin constitutions, he considers the common understanding at the time of adoption, whether that was when the constitution was first ratified, or when an amendment was ratified.
He prefers to decide cases on issues presented by the parties, and ideally those issues refined through the circuit court and court of appeals. In an ideal world, the case he is deciding is properly teed up. Having served on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, he appreciates the insight from his colleagues at the lower appellate court. While there is a time and a place for a quick decision—he has written a major decision in less than forty-eight hours—he believes the Court is at its best when it is deciding a case that has properly worked its way up.
Some of his decisions have, in my opinion, been unfairly criticized because he did not side with the “conservative” position. Justice Hagedorn, before joining the bench, served as Governor Scott Walker’s chief legal counsel. Because of this past public service there was a perception, and perhaps an assumption, that he would always decide in favor of Republican positions. Before he was sworn into the Court, however, he was upfront about the fact that not all Republicans will agree with all of his decisions. That has been true during his term. I believe that is an important quality to have in a justice. But it is also hard to advocate for given the increasing politicization of nonpartisan judicial elections. If you care about the rule of law, you don't want justices just to vote for their “side.” That's not their job. Their job is to say what the law is; consequently, sometimes your side is going to lose. Having the ability to remain impartial is an important quality—one that unfortunately can be difficult to convey.
Q: You keep a very close eye on the Court. What are one or two things about the Court that others, even regular litigators in Wisconsin state court, might not know?
A. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s assignment of opinions is unique. In the U.S. Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit, senior justices and judges dictate opinion assignments. That’s not how it works in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. After argument, the justices meet in conference, share their views, and vote. Then, the justices in the majority have a poker chip with their number (one through seven based on seniority) tossed into a hat. A number is drawn to decide who will write the opinion. There is a system in place to ensure equal distribution of majority opinions over time. This system can lead to some interesting assignments. For example, in Justice Hagedorn’s first term he had the opportunity to write some important opinions which he probably would not have written under a traditional selection method.
Another interesting point is that the opinion that we read publicly can look very different from the opinion that was first circulated to the Court. While the justices do vote after argument, the drafting process can lead to evolving opinions. Substantial revisions to opinions are not uncommon. And while some separate writings are planned when votes are cast, others are spawned after reviewing a draft opinion. In some rare cases, the outcome of a case—whether affirm or reverse—can change as drafts are reviewed.
Q: What do you think will be the direction of the Court once Judge Crawford is sworn in as its newest member?
A. Judge Crawford’s victory means the Court will retain a liberal majority until at least August 2028. There are Court seats up for election every April through 2030; however, the next two seats up for election—Justice Rebecca Bradley (2026) and current Chief Justice Ziegler (2027)—are considered conservative members of the Court. This gives the current majority at least two years to control the Court.
This term, the Court is hearing a number of significant cases touching on hot-button issues including Wisconsin’s abortion law and voting rights as well as several cases that involve how the Wisconsin Legislature and executive branch operate. The next several years will likely see more of the same, as advocates vie to bring important issues before the Court.
While the results of these important cases will make headlines, litigators will want to pay careful attention to why and how these cases are being decided. The Court may take the opportunity to re-set how it analyzes statutes and constitutional provisions. For several decades, the Court has set forth a methodology, followed by lower courts, to use the principles of textualism and originalism when reviewing statutory and constitutional provisions. The Court may be more open to reviewing extra-textual evidence when deciding not just the hot-button issues of the day but also the standard run-of-the mill statutory disputes. Such a change at the top would impact the practice of law in every court in the state.
Q: On a more personal note, you are, I hear, a devoted fan of Formula One racing. Tell us about that. Also, what lessons can litigators glean from the best drivers and teams?
A. I’m a relatively new fan. I started watching when I was traveling with my parents, and the Monaco Grand Prix was on in the hotel breakfast area. My eye kept being drawn towards the race. One of my younger brothers was already a fan, so I asked him about it and did some digging on my own to learn how the sport works. The more I learned, the more invested I became as I gained an appreciation for the strategy. Formula One is a high-pressure, high-stress team sport. The outcome of each race determines the points, with currently ten teams and twenty drivers vying for success in each two-hour race. At the end of the year, the points across all the weekends are tallied to determine the constructor’s (team) and driver’s championships.
Two lessons come to mind for litigators—the importance of building a strong team and having a growth mindset. In litigation, we focus on assembling a top team to provide the best representation for our clients. You have attorneys who are arguing the case or leading the trial, but there are attorneys behind them helping them prepare to succeed. That’s how Formula One works too. The drivers are the stars, but there’s a team that builds a car that can be driven fast and pushed to the limit. Red Bull’s 2023 season is a great example of excellent teamwork. They dominated as a team, and Max Verstappen won 19 of 22 races. Some consider it a boring season because the same driver won so often, but he was able to do that because he—and the team behind him—optimized their performance every weekend.
The second lesson is having a growth mindset. Successful litigators, like successful drivers, recognize their weaknesses and seek opportunities to improve. You can let your failures swallow you or see them as opportunities to grow. Successful litigators choose the latter. They unpack why they failed and set up systems to avoid repeated failures in the future. McLaren’s Lando Norris demonstrated this principle well in the first race of this season. Before the start of the season, and at times last season, he acknowledged his mistakes and worked with his team to improve. During the first race, he was faced with challenges that he failed last season and overcame them to win the race. It was a satisfying victory, in no small part because this showed his improvement as a driver and his teams’ improvement at communicating. This demonstrated what it looks like to reframe failures and win by putting lessons learned into practice.
