A rift within the Wisconsin Court's conservative wing boils over in handling of gender identity case [View all]
Long-simmering tensions within the state Supreme Court's conservative majority came to a head in a recent decision declining to allow a case challenging a school district's gender identity policy to bypass the standard judicial process — with justices lobbing accusations of sexism and "knives-out bluster" at each other. The case has been winding its way through the courts since 2020 when a group of parents sued the Madison Metropolitan School District over a policy that allows students to self-identify their names and pronouns without involving parents. The policy bars staff from sharing information related to a student's gender identity without the student's authorization or unless it is required by law.
In a May 19 order, the court denied a request to bypass the appeals court and take up the challenge directly. That request came after Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington dismissed the case on grounds that the plaintiff does not have standing. By that point in the lawsuit, all but one of the 14 original plaintiffs had left the case, leaving "Jane Doe 4" as the sole petitioner. Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn — who has been a swing vote on several high-profile cases decided by the conservative-led court — wrote an opinion concurring with the denial, while conservative Chief Justice Annette Ziegler wrote a dissent co-signed by Justices Rebecca Bradley and Patience Roggensack.
On June 14, the court released an amended version of the order, which included an additional dissent written by Bradley (and joined by Roggensack). In a new footnote, Hagedorn suggested Bradley waited until after his concurrence was released to write her dissent. Because of that, he said, along with her "abandonment of basic judicial decorum," Hagedorn said he would respond to Ziegler's dissent, but not Bradley's.
"Knives-out bluster may scratch the itch of political activists lusting for the fight, but it does not serve the rule of law. There are important debates to be had over how this court carries out its duties and spirited intellectual sparring is fair game. I will not, however, further dignify a writing that engages in personal attacks rather than a respectful debate over ideas," Hagedorn wrote. Hagedorn made clear that his opinion did not relate to the merits of the case, adding that the policy in question "raises colorable constitutional claims." His concern, he said, is with "how we as a court conduct our business."
Read more: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2023/06/20/wisconsin-supreme-court-conservative-rift-boils-over-in-gender-case/70338477007/
