Progressive groups and Democratic leaders criticized Republican-backed Supreme Court candidate Brian Hagedorn after earlier writings about LGBTQ people, abortion rights, civil rights groups and partisan politics received renewed attention during the 2019 campaign.
Hagedorn, who had served as legal counsel in Gov. Scott Walker’s administration, faced Democratic-backed candidate Lisa Neubauer for an open seat on Wisconsin’s highest court. The vacancy followed the retirement of former Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
At the time, the court had a 4–3 conservative majority. The election therefore carried consequences beyond the candidates themselves: a Hagedorn victory would expand that majority to 5–2.
Neubauer had joined the 2nd District Court of Appeals in 2007 and subsequently won elections in 2008 and 2014. Hagedorn was appointed to the same appeals court in 2016 and won a six-year term the following year.
Past writings became a campaign issue
The campaign drew scrutiny to blog posts Hagedorn wrote before joining the judiciary. Those writings strongly supported Republican policies and included disparaging statements about LGBTQ relationships, abortion-rights advocates and the NAACP.
One post, written in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision overturning Texas’ anti-sodomy law, compared consensual same-sex relationships with bestiality in constitutional terms. Critics argued that such statements called his impartiality into question.
Hagedorn’s campaign did not apologize for the earlier comments when they resurfaced. Hagedorn maintained that he treated everyone equally in his judicial work.
Judicial candidates’ public records matter because courts depend not only on legal authority, but also on public confidence that the law will be applied fairly.
Policy actions and institutional affiliations
Critics also pointed to Hagedorn’s work for the Walker administration in litigation concerning Wisconsin’s domestic partnership law. That statute provided limited protections—including hospital visitation and inheritance rights—to same-sex couples before nationwide marriage equality.
Further attention centered on the Augustine Academy, a private school Hagedorn helped establish in 2016. Its policies excluded LGBTQ employees and students, as well as students with LGBTQ parents. Equality advocates said the affiliation reinforced their concerns about how his stated beliefs might intersect with judicial responsibilities.
Recusal rules and confidence in the court
The campaign unfolded amid a wider debate over Wisconsin’s judicial recusal standards. Critics had objected to rules permitting justices to hear matters involving major campaign supporters rather than requiring automatic recusal based on contributions.
The concern was institutional as well as political: when judicial campaigns rely on substantial support from groups with business before the court, subsequent decisions can face public suspicion even when the legal reasoning stands on its own.
Legal reform advocates argued that stronger recusal standards would protect both litigants and the court’s legitimacy. The 2019 race became another venue for debating whether Wisconsin’s rules adequately separated campaign support from judicial decision-making.
Campaign funding drew scrutiny
Campaign finance records also placed Hagedorn’s donors under examination. The Wisconsin Realtors Association supported his campaign, while critics noted the organization’s history of backing conservative judicial candidates and its interest in cases affecting real estate.
Another donor, manufacturing executive Michael White, contributed $20,000 in November 2018. Earlier reporting had documented a 2012 workplace email in which White warned employees of possible changes to retirement and health benefits if President Barack Obama won reelection.
Wisconsin law prohibits employers from threatening employees over election outcomes. Critics argued that accepting substantial support from a donor associated with such tactics raised questions about judgment, while the contribution itself remained part of the campaign finance record.
Turnout was the decisive variable
Spring Supreme Court elections historically attract fewer voters than November general elections. After Rebecca Dallet defeated Walker-backed candidate Michael Screnock in 2018, both parties treated the next court race as a test of organization and enthusiasm.
Conservative observers reported that Hagedorn’s campaign entered the race with stronger fundraising and organization than Screnock had assembled at a comparable stage. Democratic organizers, meanwhile, looked to the coalition of women, students, younger voters and voters of color that had helped defeat Walker in 2018.
As with many low-turnout judicial contests, the immediate result depended on which coalition appeared at the polls. The longer-lasting questions—judicial independence, equality under law, campaign finance and recusal—extended well beyond election day.
