A Conversation with Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet 

In November, State Court Report, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the Northwestern University Law Review hosted a symposium on state constitutional law. Several state supreme court justices who participated in the program sat down for brief interviews with State Court Report, which we are publishing as a series.

Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2018. Prior to joining the court, she spent a decade serving as a judge on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. She was also the first female presiding court commissioner for Milwaukee County, a Milwaukee County assistant district attorney, and a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. 

In her interview, Dallet spoke about equal access to justice, challenges to the rule of law, and her commitment to getting the law right.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

When you were in law school, what did you expect your legal career to look like?

I grew up really involved in my temple youth group, where we learned about the idea of Tikkun Olam, which in Hebrew basically means to repair the world. So I had a vision of myself working in public service. That was what I was always driven to do.

Two experiences shaped the trajectory of my legal career. When I was in high school, we had a mock trial after “arresting” a teacher and I got to be the judge. Before the trial, I got to sit with an actual judge for the day, and I watched him really impact the people that came in front of him. I remember sitting on the bench and seeing that impact, and I thought to myself, I would love to do that. So I went to law school.

I did an internship with the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office between my second- and third-year summer, where I watched what prosecutors do and saw their ability to fight for justice, not just for individuals but for communities. They worked to make sure that people were charged appropriately and that victims were protected. And they tried to end the cycle of reoffending. That was also impactful for me.

What advice do you wish you had received as a law student?

I wish that I had been told to take a breath. You will figure it out. I think it’s hard to know how you’re going to get from point A to point B — if you even know what point B is. I have a memory of being a prosecutor with three young children, and I was thinking, how am I ever going to run for judge?

For me, what worked was to just focus on doing the next right thing and doing it well. That helped me become the first female presiding court commissioner for Milwaukee County. Then when a seat opened up on our county circuit, I ran for that seat and did that job well. Then I looked up to our state’s supreme court and, not liking the direction that it was heading, I decided to challenge an incumbent.

How do the challenges facing law students differ from what you experienced?

I think a big challenge today is that we can’t trust that the government is going to work the way it always has. We see precedent not being respected. We see separation of powers not being respected. Historically, when we look at the development of the law, it has been a slow process. I think that’s a good thing. When courts have overturned precedent in the past, they’ve done it slowly, carefully, and clearly so that everyone understands. And now we have courts being called out by the highest public officials. We have open calls to not respect court decisions.

I think the next generation is really going to have to fight for our democracy. They’re going to have to fight for our Constitution to be respected and to maintain the separation of powers. I think they’re up for the challenge, though.

What are the most memorable opinions you’ve participated in?

We have issued some opinions lately that are clearly high profile and have gotten a lot of attention. One of those is the case overturning a law that originated in 1849 that banned abortion. The claim there was that that law came into effect once Roe v. Wade was overturned [in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held there was no federal constitutional right to abortion]. We struck down that law because we determined that there had been so many laws and comprehensive regulation of abortion since that time that it had been essentially overridden. The other one is the redistricting case, and that one involved us striking down the state legislative maps because they were not constitutional.

Those cases were in our laps because the U.S. Supreme Court had punted the abortion issue to the states when Roe v. Wade was overturned and had decided that redistricting cases are not justiciable under the federal law [in Rucho v. Common Cause].

What do you enjoy about being a state court judge?

It’s definitely about public service to me. I think I can speak for all my colleagues in saying that we’re all committed to following the rule of law and also making the law clear, which I think is important for everyone. It’s a lot of responsibility. I care deeply about my state. I care about its people, its resources, and its communities. And I am honored, I think we’re all honored, to be able to serve and to be in a position to decide the law for the state of Wisconsin. We work hard everyday to make sure to get it right.

What are some challenges facing state courts?

A big challenge facing state courts is access to justice. A recent report by the Legal Services Corporation showed that 92 percent of people with a civil legal claim did not have that claim resolved, either at all or sufficiently.

We have a shortage of attorneys. We have funds being cut from the few places that serve the people who are indigent and unable to afford a lawyer. And there have been cuts to safety nets that are going to result in even more need for people to have access to lawyers. We’re talking about cases that are essential to life, things involving housing and people’s children, domestic violence restraining orders, the ability to get benefits. They impact not just the people involved in those cases but the entire community. I see access to justice as a key foundation to our democracy, and I think we all need to work hard to make sure that people have representation for these important life issues.

We’re working on solutions in Wisconsin, and I know other states are too. We’ve been able to increase pro bono attorneys. But we still don’t have enough attorneys, so we’re now considering proposals other states have tried, like using community justice workers.

And there is a lot happening on the U.S. Supreme Court’s shadow docket. That is actually the emergency docket, but in those orders, you don’t know who cited, who is on what side of the case, and you don’t have any clear reasoning, which also is detrimental to the law because we don’t know how it’s being developed. We don’t know why precedent is being overturned sometimes, and it’s challenging, because reliability in the law, clarity, transparency — those are all things that our court is striving for.

What would you say to people who argue that courts are too politicized?

Just because we have sometimes have profound disagreements in our opinions and dissents, it doesn’t mean that we don’t get along, and it doesn’t mean that we are divided along political lines. Despite how we’re sometimes portrayed in the media, our court is very collegial. We spend time together, and we try to leave our disagreements in our opinions.

As far as the cases themselves, I just looked at the statistic from last year, and only 18 percent of our cases were decided four to three. The misperception out there is that we are fundamentally divided, but in reality, we each care about the law. These are challenging cases. It’s on us to grapple with these issues. We do our best to decide them.

I think now, particularly, courts are being called out for doing their jobs. That is a challenge, and I think we have to work toward seeing courts as upholding the rule of law and making sure that they are that traditional check on abuse of power.

What is something people might not know about your state constitution?

We have one of the oldest constitutions outside of the New England area, dating back to 1848. But the constitution we have now is not the first one that was put forward to the voters. In 1847, they had a constitutional convention, and voters struck down that initial constitution because it was considered too progressive. There were at least two things that made it too progressive in most voters’ eyes: One was granting property rights to married women, and the other was allowing for Black suffrage to be put to a referendum. Wisconsin wanted to join the union and become a state, and they couldn’t do that until they had their constitution, so they had to take out those things.

What do you wish more people understood about state courts and constitutions?

State constitutions are the place where people’s values and interests are reflected, in part because they can be amended in a much easier way than the federal Constitution. I think they are a great place for litigants to look to support claims that they bring in front of us. And I hope that they’re going to do that on a more regular basis so we can develop more robust state constitutional case law.

Gabriella Sanchez is a staff writer and editor at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Suggested Citation: Gabriella Sanchez, A Conversation with Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Jan. 27, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/conversation-wisconsin-supreme-court-justice-rebecca-frank-dallet