In Lubar Center Program, Chief Justice Karofsky Calls for Protecting Judges and the Justice System

Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Jill Karofsky had some friends in the audience when she took part in a “Get to Know” program in the Lubar Center of Marquette Law School on Wednesday, March 4, 2026. There was also someone else with her who sought no attention but was important: a security person. Indeed, to make a point, Karofsky noted the person’s presence.

The point concerned one of Karofsky’s main themes in her conversation with Derek Mosley, director of the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education: the need to increase protection of judges and court personnel at a time when polarization and extremely hateful views are making the possibility of violence more of a concern. In Wisconsin, a retired judge from Juneau County, John Roemer, was murdered in 2022 by a man whom Roemer had sentenced to six years in prison. Karofsky herself was the target of stalking that led to the conviction of a Racine man in January 2026. She said police officers have been stationed outside her house at times. And having security officers around Supreme Court justices has become routine.

“Political violence in the United States is going in the wrong direction,” Karofsky said. “It’s unacceptable.” She said she worries every day about the safety of judges, all other staff people who work in courts, and everyone who comes into contact with the justice system. Karofsky has been urging legislators to increase spending on security for courts. She said only four people are assigned now to work on safety for judges across Wisconsin. “We’re talking about hundreds and hundreds of judges,” she said.

She also said it was “completely unacceptable” for the president of the United States to attack justices and judges for doing their jobs. “That’s as un-American as you can get,” she said.

“There are judges and justices in this country who are accessing an incredible level of courage” to do their jobs, Karofsky said. “I think in many ways the judiciary is the bulwark for protecting our democracy.”

But when an audience member asked whether the personal risk meant attorneys shouldn’t aspire to be judges, Karofsky said the value and importance of the work can continue to make it worth being on the bench. More broadly, Karofsky said she encourages people to go to law school and become lawyers. “We need good lawyers in this country right now more than we ever have.”

Among her priorities, Karofsky is pushing to have a policy created for when judges and justices should recuse themselves from taking part in cases, including when one of the parties has been a donor to their campaigns. Karofsky said there is a rule petition in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court currently. “We’re going to have a rule hearing . . . , and it is my hope and my desire and my plan to work together to craft a rule that is best for the people in this state” by the end of the current court term in June, she said.

Although the partisan split between conservatives and liberals on the Wisconsin high court has received great attention and shaped recent races for the court, Karofsky said the reality of the court’s work is generally much different. “We are far more likely” to have decisions that are 7 to 0 or 6 to 1 or 5 to 2 than 4 to 3, she said. She said the justices work together, socialize together, and take part in events and celebrations outside of work. The idea that the court is split 4 to 3 on everything, “that’s not the world I live in,” she said.

Although she said she does not like the high costs of recent Supreme Court races in Wisconsin, she said that the blame should be put on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which she characterized as opening the way for large donations by corporations and organizations. And she said she continues to support election of judges and justices, rather than appointment through a political process.

Asked by Mosley if she had a message for the law students in the audience, Karofsky said, “We are at a pivotal time in our democracy. And this is a time when the law can really be used as a vehicle to protect the rights of people in our communities, and it can be used as a vehicle to change things that aren’t working for people. I think you are learning how to be lawyers here, and graduating with your law degrees is going to give you incredible power and the incredible opportunity to make a difference in this world are time when we need it most.” Video of the one-hour conversation may be viewed by clicking here.

Video of the one-hour conversation may be viewed by clicking here.

Continue ReadingIn Lubar Center Program, Chief Justice Karofsky Calls for Protecting Judges and the Justice System

The Changing Federal and Wisconsin Law of Judicial Deference to Administrative Agencies

The matter of judicial deference to administrative agencies’ interpretations of law has seen notable developments both in Wisconsin and at the federal level in recent years. James B. Speta, the Elizabeth Froehling Horner professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, recently participated in a panel on the topic at the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Annual Meeting and Convention and developed his remarks into this guest post appearing on the Marquette Law School Faculty Blog on October 1, 2025.

Very near the end of its term last year, on June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down one of its most significant administrative law decisions ever. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) overruled one of the Court’s own precedents, which it had relied upon for 40 years in more than a hundred decisions and which had been cited in nearly 20,000 lower court decisions. Yet not only was Loper Bright not a great surprise in federal administrative law, but it was in many ways anticipated by a decision issued by the Wisconsin Supreme Court interpreting that state’s administrative law six years earlier, Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue (2018).

Continue ReadingThe Changing Federal and Wisconsin Law of Judicial Deference to Administrative Agencies

Wisconsin Supreme Court Confirms DNR’s Power to Enforce the Spills Law Amid Increasing Citizen Concerns Over PFAS

The latest edition of the Marquette Law School Poll revealed that 79 percent of registered Wisconsin voters are very or somewhat concerned about a class of emerging contaminants known as PFAS, often called the “forever chemicals,” in their water supply. PFAS have been used across a broad spectrum of commercial applications from firefighting foam to food packaging. They were prized for their resistance to breaking down; ironically, that trait has caused part of the problem, as PFAS are now present throughout the environment.

More recently, scientists have determined that PFAS cause a variety of serious adverse health effects including cancer. Significant quantities of PFAS have been detected in numerous Wisconsin public water distribution networks and private wells. The poll results show that Wisconsinites’ level of concern about PFAS has increased ten percent from last year, and twenty percent over 2022, when the question first appeared in the poll. When the sample is confined to those who have heard about PFAS in their community, a full 90% are very or somewhat concerned about PFAS.

Meanwhile, late last month the Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in a dispute over the extent of the DNR’s authority to require responsible parties to clean up releases of PFAS and other emerging contaminants under the state’s “Spills Law,” Wis. Stat. s. 292.11. At its core, the Spills Law requires a person who causes the discharge of a “hazardous substance” (or who possesses or controls a hazardous substance that has been discharged) to notify WDNR of the spill and then to “take the actions necessary to restore the environment”—a potentially time-consuming and expensive process.

We have known for a long time that some substances, such as PCBs, are “hazardous.” But others, such as PFAS, have lurked unknown or undetectable until very recently, hence the name “emerging contaminants.” The statute does not enumerate which “substances” are “hazardous.” Instead, it broadly defines the term to include anything that causes a substantial threat to human health or the environment. Historically, the DNR enjoyed considerable flexibility in determining what qualifies as a “hazardous substance” on an ad hoc basis, sometimes even construing it to include everyday substances (milk, for example, when released in sufficient quantities to sensitive receiving waters).

The central question in the case decided in June, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Inc. et al. v. Wisconsin Natural Resources Board, et al., arose over whether WDNR could continue to determine “hazardous substances” on a case-by-case basis, or whether it had to engage in administrative rulemaking to create a list identifying which substances it considered hazardous, and at what quantities or concentrations in the environment. The rulemaking process is lengthy and often controversial, so a decision against DNR would have posed substantial challenges for it, potentially eliminating its ability to respond in real time to spills of emerging contaminants. On the other hand, a list of hazardous substances would provide predictability and certainty to parties responsible for cleanups under the Spills Law. Both the trial court and the court of appeals ruled against DNR and would have required the agency to create the list. The agency would presumably also have had to revise the list via rulemaking whenever it wanted to add a new “emerging contaminant,” a difficult task when considering that PFAS are not a single chemical compound but rather a generalized term for a class of thousands of slightly different substances.

The supreme court reversed, holding in DNR’s favor that the agency could continue its practice of determining whether a release involved a “hazardous substance” based on the individual circumstances of each case. The court held that the statute’s “broad and open-ended” definition of “hazardous substance” is cabined by the requirement that the substance significantly increase mortality or contribute to serious illness in humans, or that it may pose a substantial hazard to human health or the environment.

The court also found no definitional rulemaking requirement in the plain text of the statute, despite the Legislature’s inclusion of such a requirement in other provisions of the Spills Law. In considering how the Spills Law works, context is important, the court observed: “a gallon of milk spilled into Lake Michigan may not ‘pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment,’ but a 500-gallon tank of beer or milk discharged into a trout stream might well pose [such a hazard] to the stream’s fish and environment.” Thus, the court thought it was important for DNR to retain some flexibility in interpreting the statute.

Moreover, the court held the DNR’s interpretation did not violate Wis. Stat. s. 227.10(2m), a provision that I have blogged about before. It requires “explicit” statutory or regulatory authority for an agency to “implement or enforce any standard, requirement, or threshold.” The court reiterated its holding in the Clean Wisconsin cases that the statute  “may be satisfied by a grant of authority that is explicit but broad.” The requisite authority was present in the Spills Law itself, the court found.

The court’s affirmation of DNR’s authority to require responsible parties to remediate spills of emerging contaminants such as PFAS on a case-by-case basis is, no doubt, a victory for the agency. It allows DNR to require cleanup for spills not only of PFAS but of any other emerging contaminant that comes along in the future. But it also likely provides some comfort to the 79 percent of Wisconsinites who are concerned about PFAS entering their water supply.

Read the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s opinion here.

Continue ReadingWisconsin Supreme Court Confirms DNR’s Power to Enforce the Spills Law Amid Increasing Citizen Concerns Over PFAS
Older Posts