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

Congratulations to the Environmental Law Moot Court Team!

Marquette’s environmental law moot court team, consisting of 3Ls Alana Borman, Thais Marques, and Grady Rosin, traveled to New York in late February to represent the Law School at the National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (NELMCC) hosted by Pace University in White Plains, New York. Several months of grueling preparation paid major dividends at the competition, as the team performed extremely well across a variety of metrics. Out of more than 50 teams competing, the Marquette team’s brief was ranked second overall, and after three preliminary rounds of oral argument, the Marquette team was ranked fourth. Ultimately, the team advanced to the quarterfinals before falling in a tightly contested match.

Afterwards, Alana, Thais, and Grady reflected on the journey. “Writing an appellate brief with my teammates and advocating for the three different parties in the lawsuit at oral arguments was an intense, complex, and creative way of wrapping up my last year of law school,” said Marques. “I am sure I will look back at this experience with pride.”

Rosin summed it up this way: “The competition was a great way to cap off our brief writing and oral argument practice. We performed well and were able to meet many like-minded students and connect over the shared law school experience.”

Borman added, “NELMCC gave me an opportunity to litigate an environmental issue, an opportunity I would not have had without this competition. The competition solidified my desire to help the environment. I will bring this experience into my practice as I graduate in May. I hope every student has this same opportunity to grow in their law school career, especially at the NELMCC competition.”

The team also thanked practitioner-coaches Tressie Kamp and Dennis Grzezinski, as well as Professor Sarah Fox and Professor Christine Chabot, all of whom helped prepare the team for the competition.

Congratulations, team!

Continue ReadingCongratulations to the Environmental Law Moot Court Team!

Border Republicans vs. Inflation Republicans

We released a new Marquette Law School Poll of Wisconsin voters today. It includes a lot of details about topics like the Wisconsin Supreme Court race (voters aren’t paying much attention yet), the gubernatorial primary (voters aren’t paying attention to that either), and data centers (voters really don’t like them).

Here’s one result from the poll that stood out to me. It comes from a bog-standard polling question that we ask variations of in most surveys. “Which one of the following issues matters MOST to you right now?” We occasionally change the response options based on what’s in the news.

In this poll and our previous October poll, we offered the same 8 options. The choices were jobs and the economy, inflation and the cost of living, public schools, illegal immigration and border security, abortion policy, crime in your community, gun violence, health insurance, taxes, and affordability of housing.

If I had to summarize the consensus as to why Donald Trump won in 2024, two policy issues would rise to the top (setting aside incumbency advantage and the drama around Biden). They are concerns about affordability/inflation and border security/immigration. Trump’s 2024 campaign succeeded in capturing support from voters who cared about each of these, but the two issues share no basic ideological connection.

Trump has, during his first year, struggled to satisfy both concerns. His administration has spent a great deal of political capital on anti-immigration measures. On affordability, Trump has struggled to find a message, insisting at times that the whole issue is a Democratic “hoax.”

Nonetheless, these two issues remain the two most important for Wisconsin Republicans in our surveys. In October, 23% of Republicans (including Republican-leaning independents) listed inflation and the cost of living as their top issue, while 31% chose illegal immigration and border security. In February, the balance flipped, as 27% chose inflation and 22% immigration.

I thought pooling the two surveys might yield some interesting insights into these two large groups of Republicans—those who worry most about affordability and the cost of living vs. those whose main concern is illegal immigration and border security. As shorthand, I’ll call these “border Republicans” and “inflation Republicans.”

Demographic Differences Between Border and Inflation Republicans

Across those two surveys, 25% of Republicans chose inflation and 27% chose immigration/border security as their most important issues. So, among Republicans as a whole, 2 percentage points more preferred immigration and border security. Here is the same calculation for a bunch of different groups within the Republican party.

The biggest gaps are along ideological and age lines.

graph showing the relative number the share of republicans (among different groups) who say inflation and the cost of living is a more important issue than illegal immigration and border security

Self-described “moderates” made up 21% of Republicans in this sample, and they prioritized inflation by 23 points. Self-described “very conservative” Republicans made up a similar 25% of the total, and they prioritized illegal immigration and border security by 17 points.

About a fifth of Wisconsin Republicans are under age 36, and this group prioritized inflation by 21 points. At the other end of the spectrum, 28% of Republicans are over age 65, and they prioritized the border by 25 points.

About a quarter of Wisconsin Republicans identify as a born again or evangelical Christian. They prioritized the border by 12 points. All other protestants (32% of Republicans) prioritized inflation by 6 points. Catholics were evenly divided.

Other differences were smaller. Female Republicans prioritized inflation by 3 points; male Republicans prioritized the border by 4 points. Republicans with no more than a high school degree prioritized the border by 11 points. Those with a college degree preferred inflation by 3 points. There was little difference at all between Republicans by income.

Differences in the Attitudes of Border and Inflation Republicans

Republicans whose top priority is addressing inflation and the cost of living tend to be younger, and more self-consciously moderate. Those who prioritize addressing illegal immigration and border security tend to be older, conservative, and evangelical. In Wisconsin, the two groups are roughly equal in size, and together make up about half the party.

Do these differences in priority translate to different attitudes toward Trump and his party?

First of all, there isn’t much difference in how these people view the Democratic party. Border Republicans are 98% unfavorable and 0% favorable. Inflation Republicans are 92% unfavorable and 3% favorable. More inflation Republicans haven’t heard enough or say they don’t know.

There’s a bigger difference in how these two groups see the Republican party. Border Republicans are 94% favorable, compared to just 79% of inflation Republicans.

The two groups both overwhelmingly opposed Harris in 2024. Of those who voted, 99% of border Republicans supported Trump and 0% Harris. Among inflation Republicans who voted, 93% supported Trump and 1% Harris.

Despite supporting Trump in 2024 by more than 9-in-10, the two groups differ in their assessment of his job performance thus far. Eighty-two percent of border Republicans “strongly” approve of the job Trump is doing and only 1% disapprove. Among inflation Republicans, only 39% “strongly” approve. Most of the rest (46%) “somewhat” approve, so these voters aren’t lost to Trump, but they are low on enthusiasm for him.

That lack of enthusiasm can change elections. All these survey respondents are registered voters, and nearly equal numbers recalled voting in the 2024 presidential elections—95% of border Republicans and 94% of inflation Republicans. Despite this, the two groups vary enormously in their plans to vote in Wisconsin’s upcoming April election. Among border Republicans, 82% are “absolutely certain” they will vote. Among inflation Republicans, only 62% are so certain.

Continue ReadingBorder Republicans vs. Inflation Republicans