Appellate

RSS Link

stock photo

Dec. 16, 2025 – A car enthusiast who likes vanity plates to express his opinions recently lost his First Amendment claim on summary judgment before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

The court in M J Nichols Company, Inc. v. Thompson, No. 24-cv-566-amb (W.D. Wis., Dec. 12, 2025), held that a license plate is government speech.

Whether the language on a license plate is individual expression or government speech to which the First Amendment doesn’t

…
Continue Reading U.S. District Court: First Amendment Doesn’t Protect ‘RD RRAGE’

stock photo
Nov. 25, 2025 – In what may be the first case of its kind, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in

State v. Melssen, No. 2024AP1942-CR (Nov. 20, 2025) (recommended for publication) vacated an order denying suppression of evidence obtained from an overly broad search of a smartphone. Presiding Judge Rachel A. Graham, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, concluded “the warrant to search [Emil] Melssen’s smartphone – which authorized officers to search virtually all of the messages, images,

…
Continue Reading Court of Appeals: Smartphone Search Unconstitutionally Overbroad

Here is an update from Attorney Emily Dudak Leiter of The Law Center, S.C., regarding Davis v. Ermold and Moore:

As most have heard already, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal constructed by Kim Davis and Liberty Counsel, which was attempting to overturn Obergefell and marriage equality. The Supreme Court declined to review the case last week, and they did so without comment. That is a huge relief. That means nothing is imminent.

I wanted to

…
Continue Reading Update Regarding Davis V. Ermold And Moore

stock photo of a hemp plant
Nov. 12, 2025 – A required administrative referral for criminal prosecution didn’t apply for allegedly breaking controlled substances laws, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently held in
State v. Syrrakos, No. 2024AP554-CR and
State v. Shattuck, No. 2024AP556-CR (Oct. 29, 2025) (recommended for publication). The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the consolidated cases against Christopher J. Syrrakos and Kristyn A. Shattuck to Waukesha County Circuit Court. The circuit court dismissed the cases because the Department of

…
Continue Reading Court of Appeals: Controlled Substance Violation Doesn't Get Hemp Regulatory Protection

https-www-wisbar-org-newspublications-publishingimages-article%20images-court-scales-gavel-1200x630-jpg

In a concurrence to one of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s blockbuster opinions from the 2024-25 term, SEIU Healthcare Wis. v. WERC, 2025 WI 29, 416 Wis. 2d 688, 22 N.W.2d 876 (Dallet, J., concurring), Justice Dallet called on the Court to reevaluate Wisconsin’s current—and oft-cited—approach to statutory interpretation as set forth in State ex rel. Kalal v. Cir. Ct. Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110.

Kalal created a textualist, two-step methodology for interpreting…
Continue Reading The End of the Textualist Era? Wisconsin Supreme Court Presented with Opportunity to Overturn Kalal

Recent weeks and months have witnessed several Medicaid developments that may significantly impact Medicaid funding across the country. Not all of these developments are related to the Medicaid-related provisions of H.R. 1 (Public Law 119-21 (July 4, 2025), otherwise known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill”). This article summarizes three developments that are unrelated to H.R. 1:

  • U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (“Fourth Circuit”) remands intergovernmental transfer (“IGT”) funding case back to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid

    • …
    Continue Reading Medicaid Developments Unrelated to Recent Congressional Actions

    The Indiana Court of Appeals (the “Court”) in In re: the Civil Commitment of J.A. upheld the trial court’s Order for Temporary Commitment, holding sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that J.A. was gravely disabled and unable to function independently outside of the hospital setting. In re: the Civil Commitment of J.A., No. 25A-MH-528, 260 N.E.3d 231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). The Court also emphasized it would not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility on appeal, despite J.A.’s…
    Continue Reading Indiana Court of Appeals Emphasizes Trial Court’s Role in Credibility Determinations for Grave Disability Findings

    Stock Photo of a Jury
    Oct. 14, 2025 – A circuit court’s failure to instruct the jury to decide on each period of abandonment denied a mother due process protection of a five-sixths verdict, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decided in

    S. S. v. A. S.-P.    , No. 2024AP2532 (Sept. 23, 2025) (recommended for publication). The decision clarifies “unsettled law,” justifying reversal of the Brown County Circuit Court verdict for plain error. “When multiple periods of abandonment are alleged, that statute requires the jury

    …
    Continue Reading Court of Appeals: Separate Abandonment Claims Require Separate Verdicts

    Stock Photo of Blurred Mental Hospital Hallway

    Oct. 14, 2025 – The statute setting requirements for recommitting an individual that the circuit court had conditionally released after a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect the Wisconsin Court of Appeals found unconstitutional in State v. ​Wilhite, No. 2024AP2177-CR (Sept. 25, 2025) (recommended for publication).

    Due process requires a finding of dangerousness, explained Presiding Judge JoAnn F. Kloppenburg for the unanimous panel, including Judges Brian W. Blanchard and Jennifer E. Nashold.

    The

    …
    Continue Reading Court of Appeals: Dangerousness Necessary to Support Recommittal

    The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (“Fourth Circuit”) recently heard oral arguments in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Donald Trump (“NADOHE v. Trump”), a case challenging the constitutionality of certain aspects of President Trump’s anti-diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”) executive orders, including Executive Order 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, and Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (collectively, the “EOs”). The Fourth Circuit previously granted…
    Continue Reading NADOHE v. Trump Update: Oral Arguments Suggest Anti-DEI Executive Orders May Survive Legal Challenge

    Stock Image of a No Symbol before Gavel
    Sept. 22, 2025 – Two state statutes that covered the same criminal act – one that required a mandatory minimum sentence – were not unconstitutional under federal and state precedent, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District I recently held in

    State v. Kenyon    , No. 2022AP2228-CR (Sept. 16, 2025) (recommended for publication). “[W]e find no case that stands for or even implicitly supports the proposition that a trial penalty is imposed when the State chooses to charge a defendant

    …
    Continue Reading Court of Appeals: No ‘Trial Penalty’ for Different Sentences in Similar Statutes

    Stock Photo

    Sept. 2, 2025 – A police request to enter an apartment to search for a missing child – when they really sought evidence of drug dealing – voided any consent that the defendant may have given, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin decided in U.S.A. v. Jose Angel Hernandez-Pineda, No. 25-CR-64 (Aug. 25, 2025), available at 2025 WL 2438683.

    “In this case, the officers told Hernandez-Pineda that they needed to get into his home to

    …
    Continue Reading U.S. District Court Suppresses Evidence: Police Ruse Defeats Voluntary Consent

    The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (also referred to as the “Court” or the “Seventh Circuit”) recently ruled that a plaintiff’s religious accommodation claim should proceed to trial, applying the heightened “undue hardship” standard established in 2023 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy (“Groff“). In Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp. (“Kluge“), the Court concluded that there were factual disputes over whether the plaintiff’s last-name-only accommodation imposed an undue hardship upon the employer.
    Case Background
    As…
    Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Revives Plaintiff’s Religious Accommodation Case Under Groff Standard

    https-www-wisbar-org-newspublications-publishingimages-article%20images-federal-court-house-1200x630-jpg

    By Attorney Emily Dudak Leiter

    The Law Center for Children & Families

    Madison, WI

    Here is a summary and our opinion regarding the petition for review by Kim Davis and Liberty Counsel to SCOTUS.

    Kim Davis is the former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses in 2015 to same-sex couples on religious grounds. Her attorneys in the petition for review are Liberty Counsel, which is a right-wing Christian organization designated as a “hate group” by the…
    Continue Reading Summary of Davis v. Ermold and Moore

    Stock Photo Showing First Amendment to U.S. Constitution

    Aug. 18, 2025 – The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s (UW) removal of Madeline Krasno’s comments on its Facebook and Instagram posts violated the First Amendment because its policies were not reasonable or content-neutral, a 2-1 majority on a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held in

    Madeline Krasno v. Jennifer Mnookin    , No. 22-3170 (Aug. 1, 2025).

    “In short, [UW’s] inflexible and context-blind keyword filters do not reasonably further its ‘off-topic’ justification when there is no way

    …
    Continue Reading Seventh Circuit: U.W.’s Blocking ‘Off Topic’ Comments Violated First Amendment

    Stock Photo of Unlocked Handcuffs​​
    Aug. 12, 2025 – A mistrial based on a misunderstanding of Wisconsin’s
    State v. Denny led to unconstitutional double jeopardy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held recently in

    Mitchell D. Green v. Milwaukee County Circuit Court    , No. 24-2980 (Aug. 1, 2025). The reversal of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin resulted in Green receiving the requested writ of habeas corpus, freeing him from retrial. “By relying on a mistake

    …
    Continue Reading Seventh Circuit: No ‘Manifest Necessity’ for Mistrial Requires Reversal