Wisconsin Supreme Court – Page 17 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

SCOWIS Approves LWOP for 14-Year-Old Killers

Post author:Michael M. O'Hear
Post published:May 20, 2011
Post category:Constitutional Interpretation Criminal Law & Process U.S. Supreme Court Wisconsin Criminal Law & Process Wisconsin Supreme Court

Today, in State v. Ninham, 2011 WI 33, the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved the sentence of life without possibility of parole for fourteen-year-olds who are convicted of first-degree intentional homicide. The decision rests on a narrow reading of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark holding last year in Graham v. Florida, in which the Court outlawed LWOP for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide crimes. Since Graham, lower courts across the country have been wrestling with the implications of the decision for other categories of offenses and offenders.

Ninham’s challenge was framed as a categorical challenge to the use of LWOP against fourteen-year-olds. As such, the challenge was appropriately assessed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court using the two-prong analysis of Graham, (1) determining whether there is a national consensus against the challenged practice, and (2) exercising independent judgment as to whether the practice constitutes an unconstitutionally severe punishment.

As to the first prong, although a large majority of states authorize LWOP for fourteen-year-olds, the sentence is in practice very infrequently imposed:

SCOTUS to Consider Scope of Ministerial Exception

Post author:Daniel Suhr
Post published:April 11, 2011
Post category:Religion & Law U.S. Supreme Court Wisconsin Supreme Court

When the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Coulee Catholic Schools v. LIRC, 2009 WI 88 , Professor Esenberg and I both took to this blog to praise Justice Gableman’s majority decision. The decision is undoubtedly the most important religious liberty case in Wisconsin since Jackson v. Benson (1998) and State v. Miller (1996). It concerned the scope of the “ministerial exception” to anti-discrimination employment laws and the status of a teacher in a religious school.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted cert in Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC. The case presents the same basic question as Coulee: does the ministerial exception include “a teacher at a religious elementary school who teaches the full secular curriculum, but also teaches daily religion classes, is a commissioned minister, and regularly leads students in prayer and worship”?

Supreme Court Candidates Debate: Testy Talk About Collegiality

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:March 23, 2011
Post category:Judges & Judicial Process Political Processes & Rhetoric Wisconsin Court System Wisconsin Law & Legal System Wisconsin Supreme Court

Four thoughts in the aftermath of the debate Monday evening at Eckstein Hall between incumbent Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser and his challenger in the April 5 election, Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg:

First: As a news reporter, I’ve never covered a race for a Supreme Court seat. I was struck by how awkward the debate is, compared to the plain old partisan races I’ve covered fairly often. It’s similar to confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court justices: Basically, if you have something substantial to say, you can’t and shouldn’t say it. You can’t say what you would do with any potential upcoming issues. Frequently, you can’t (or won’t) comment on past actions, although Prosser did talk about some past cases and said he was glad to run on his record. So you end up standing there, saying repeatedly that you are independent and nonpartisan and will judge each case fairly and with an open mind. Which both Kloppenburg and Prosser did. But it is very clear that Prosser is being backed by conservatives and Republican-oriented groups and Kloppenburg is being backed by liberals and Democratic-leaning groups. Do all these people and groups know something the candidates don’t know? Are they wrong? Or is this a curious exercise in avoiding talking about the issues, even though everyone seems to know what you’d say if you did?

Two: I’ve been at some testy and tense debates and joint appearances by candidates in various races, but this one was way up the list, if it wasn’t the champion on my personal list.