Hageden recounts himself when the Supreme Court seems ready to listen to the challenge of Law 10 • Wisconsin Examiner

A judge of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin who helped write Law 10 was challenged on Thursday when the Superior Court indicated that he was preparing to assume a legal challenge to the 2011 law that limits the rights of collective bargaining of public employees.

After a Dane County judge annulled Law 10, the plaintiffs, a teacher union, presented a motion before the Supreme Court of the State to avoid the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin and resume the case directly.

On Thursday, the Court issued an order related to that motion, granting a request from the Republican leaders of the state legislature to intervene and submit a response to the Bypass application. The Court established a deadline of February 5 for the response.

Together with Thursday’s order, Judge Brian Hageden issued an order that challenged himself to participate in the case. Hagido previously served as the legal advisor of Republican governor Scott Walker and helped write the bill that became Law 10, then defended him against a challenge of the Federal Court.

In December, a Dane County Judge ruled that part of the law are unconstitutional Because it deals with the similar types of state employees differently. The law retained collective bargaining rights for police officers, but excluded police officers from the State Capitol, Conservation Guardians and Correctional Officers.

“Law 10 as the Legislature defines the public security employee specific and closely,” Jacob Frost wrote. “It is that definition that is unconstitutional.”

In his order of recs on Thursday, Hageden recognized his role in the configuration and defense of the law.

“The members of the Judiciary make a solemn oath to be independent and impartial,” Hageden wrote. “Our duty is to call it directly in all cases, without partiality or prejudice towards anyone. The law must guide our decisions, not politics, tribalism or personal policy opinions. ”

“After reviewing the presentations and the various ethical rules that I have sworn to maintain, I have concluded that the law requires that I challenge this case,” he continued. “The problems raised involve issues for which I provided legal advisor both in the initial elaboration and in the subsequent defense of Law 10, even in a case that raises almost identical claims under the Federal Constitution.”

Hageden also pointed out that many of the legal arguments in the current challenge are similar to those made in the Federal case of 2011.

Judge Janet Protasiewicz, who had previously said that he could withdraw from a case of Law 10 because she participated in protests against legislation as it was pending, did not participate in the decision to accept the case, but did not give an order that said she said that she He said she. Drouse herself.

Both hagodan and Prostiewicz had faced calls to challenge in the case. ProtasEwicz had also faced threats of political trial of Republican legislators in an earlier case on the legislative maps of the State.

In his order, Hageden warned about the politicization of the challenge process.

“In my opinion, the challenge of this court should be rare, done only when the law requires it,” he wrote. “Going beyond that can create problems. We have seen how the challenge can be armed by parties that seek a litigation advantage. “

In response to the court order on Thursday on the request of the legislature to intervene, Judge Rebecca Bradley and President Justice Annette Ziegler disagreed.

They, together with Hageden, have also disagreed in several decisions of the Supreme Court to avoid the lower courts and take cases after the majority of the court turned four conservative judges to four liberals in 2023.

Bradley, writing Thursday’s dissent, said the state legislature had requested an extension of two weeks to respond to the request for derivation, and instead received three business days.

“There is absolutely no reason to deny the request of the Legislature, unless three members of this Court wish to accompany the progress of another politically charged with the purpose of annulled the law established on a subject already decided by this court eleven years ago “Bradley wrote.

The dispute on Law 10 will play an important role in the election of the Supreme Court of this April between the judge of Dane County, Susan Crawford, and the Waukesha County Judge, Brad Schimel, who was the State Attorney General during Walker’s second mandate.