In November, state court reportBrennan Center for Justice, and Northwestern University Law Overview He hosted a symposium on the state constitution. Several state Supreme Court justices who participated in the program agreed to brief interviews. state court report” is published as a series.

Judge Rebecca Frank Durrett was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2018. Prior to joining the court, he served as a judge on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court for 10 years. She was also the first female presiding judge in Milwaukee County, an assistant district attorney for Milwaukee County, and a special assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

In the interview, Durrett spoke about equal access to justice, challenging the rule of law, and working to get 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 be like?

I grew up very involved in temple youth groups. There we learned about the idea of ​​tikkun olam, which in Hebrew basically means repairing the world. So I had a vision of working as a civil servant. That’s what I was always driven to do.

Two experiences shaped the trajectory of my legal career. When I was in high school, there was a mock trial after I “arrested” my teacher, and I ended up being the judge. Before the trial, I was able to sit with the actual judge that day and saw him truly impact the people who came before him. I remember sitting on the bench and seeing the impact and thinking I really wanted to try it. So I went to law school.

I interned at the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office during the summer between my sophomore and junior years, where I observed prosecutors at work and witnessed their ability to fight for justice not only for individuals but for the community. They worked to ensure that people were properly prosecuted and that victims were protected. And they sought to end the cycle of recidivism. That was shocking to me too.

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

I wish I had been told to take a breath. you will understand it. Even if you know what point B is, it can be difficult to know how to get from point A to point B. I remember being a prosecutor with three young children and wondering how I was going to run for judge.

What worked for me was to focus on doing the next right thing and doing it well. Because of that, I was able to become the first female presiding judge in Milwaukee County. And when a seat opened up on our county circuit, I ran for it and did the job very well. I then looked to the state Supreme Court, didn’t like the direction it was taking, and decided to challenge the incumbent court.

How are the challenges facing law students different from those you have experienced?

I think the big challenge today is that we can’t believe that government will function the same way it always has. It shows that precedent is not respected. It shows that the separation of powers is not respected. Historically, the development of law has been a slow process. I think that’s a good thing. When courts have overturned precedent in the past, they have done so slowly, deliberately, and clearly so that everyone can understand. And now the court is being held by the highest-ranking civil servants. We are calling on the public not to respect the court’s decision.

I think the next generation really has to fight for democracy. They will have to fight to ensure that the Constitution is respected and that the separation of powers is maintained. But I think they’re up for the challenge.

What is the most memorable opinion you have attended?

We recently published some opinions that have obviously gotten a lot of attention and are getting a lot of attention. One of these is a lawsuit to overturn an 1849 law banning abortion. The argument there was that the law had been enacted once. Roe vs. Wade It was turned over (at Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationthe U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there was no federal constitutional right to abortion). We repealed that law because we determined that since then there have been so many laws and comprehensive regulations regarding abortion that they are essentially invalid. The other was a redistricting case in which a state legislative map was torn down on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.

These cases were in our hands because the U.S. Supreme Court had pushed the abortion issue to the states. Roe vs. Wade was overturned, ruling that the redistricting lawsuit was not warranted under federal law ( Lucho vs. Common Cause).

What do you enjoy about being a state court judge?

For me, it’s definitely about public service. I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that we are all committed to upholding the rule of law and ensuring clarity in the law. I think this is important for everyone. It’s a lot of responsibility. I am very concerned about my condition. I care about people, resources and community. And I’m honored, and all of us are, to be able to serve and decide the laws of Wisconsin. We are working hard every day to ensure that this happens.

What are some of the challenges facing state courts?

A major challenge facing state courts is access to justice. A recent report by the Legal Services Corporation shows that 92% of people with civil legal claims have their claims never or satisfactorily resolved.

There is a shortage of lawyers. Funding is being cut from the few places that serve poor people who cannot afford lawyers. And safety nets are being cut, which will make people’s need for access to lawyers even greater. We’re talking about essential cases, housing and children, domestic violence restraining orders, and the ability to receive benefits. These affect not only the people involved in the incident, but also the community as a whole. I believe that access to justice is an important cornerstone of democracy, and that we all need to work hard to ensure that people are represented on these important life issues.

We are working on solutions in Wisconsin, and I know other states are as well. We were able to increase the number of pro bono lawyers. But there still aren’t enough lawyers, so the state is currently considering proposals that other states have tried, such as using community justice workers.

And there’s a lot going on in the shadow cases of the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s actually an emergency document, but the order doesn’t say who cited it, who’s on which side, and there’s no clear basis for it. This is also harmful to the law because we don’t know how the law is developed. I don’t know why precedent is sometimes overturned, but it’s difficult. Because credibility, clarity, and transparency of the law are all what this court strives for.

What do you say to those who say the courts are too politicized?

Just because we sometimes have deep disagreements in our opinions and opposing opinions does not mean we don’t get along or that we are divided along political lines. Despite how we are sometimes portrayed in the media, our courts are highly collegial. We spend time together and leave our differences alone.

As for the cases themselves, I looked at the statistics from last year and found that only 18% of cases were decided 4-3. There is a widespread misconception that we are fundamentally divided, when in fact we each care about the law. These are difficult cases. It is our responsibility to address these issues. We will do our best to determine them.

I think that courts, especially now, are being asked to do that job. That’s a challenge, and I think we need to strive to make sure that our courts uphold the rule of law and are a traditional check on abuse of power.

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

Our Constitution is one of the oldest outside the New England region, dating back to 1848. But the Constitution we have now is not the first one proposed to voters. A constitutional convention was held in 1847, but voters deemed the original constitution too progressive and repealed it. There were at least two things that made this bill too progressive in the eyes of most voters. One is to give property rights to married women, and the other is to allow black suffrage in a referendum. Wisconsin wanted to join the union and become a state, but that wasn’t possible until the Constitution was written, so those things had to be taken away.

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

State constitutions are where people’s values ​​and interests are reflected, in part because they are much easier to amend than the federal constitution. We believe this is the best place for litigants to support the claims brought before us. And I hope they do it more regularly so we can develop stronger state constitutional case law.

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

Recommended citation: Gabriela Sanchez Conversation with Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Frank DurrettSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (January 27, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/conversation-wisconsin-supreme-court-justice-rebecca-frank-dallet

You’re reading our series on 2025 state constitutional trends. All cases are handpicked and available by us state case database.

State courts considered a variety of gun rights issues in 2025. Multiple courts, including Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, and Washington, have upheld firearm restrictions under both state and federal right-to-bear arms provisions. These courts have often struggled to interpret the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decisions and determine when and how to apply federal case law to state constitutional issues.

Prohibition of large capacity magazines

In May, the Washington Supreme Court upheld a state law that bans the sale or manufacture of high-capacity magazines that allow shooters to fire multiple times without reloading. Often used in mass shootings.

7-2 majority washington vs gator custom gun The ruling explained that high-capacity magazines are not “weapons” protected by the Second Amendment, nor is it a state’s constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense. It also wrote that purchasing these products “is not necessary to the basis of the right to possess firearms for self-defense.”

The case highlighted the ongoing difficulties state and federal courts face in interpreting and applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment rulings. The trial court initially found that Washington’s ban violated the state constitution, based on federal precedent. The order came after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruenannounced a “history and tradition” test for evaluating the legality of weapons restrictions and ruled unconstitutional a New York state statute requiring proof of “special necessity” for self-defense to obtain certain concealed handgun permits.

After the US Supreme Court in 2024 America vs. Rahimi The Washington Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court’s suspension of the ruling, noting that there was “no benefit to the trial court” in ruling that those subject to domestic violence restraining orders could be temporarily disarmed. Rahimi“This makes it even clearer.” bridge”

“I am perplexed by our Second Amendment jurisprudence; bridge and Rahimi” Chief Justice Stephen Gonzalez said during oral argument. gator custom gun.

González’s comments were similar to those of other judges considering challenges to weapons restrictions. bridge. “There are concerns about how ‘history’ and historiography can become part of legal analysis” in gun rights cases, Ohio Judge Jennifer Brunner wrote in 2022. And during oral arguments in a case challenging the switchblade ban in 2024, Massachusetts Judge David Lowy said, “I don’t know what the country’s historical tradition means. … People in Wyoming in 1867 may have had a slightly different view of whether they needed to possess the closest thing to a switchblade, but does that matter?”

A unique interpretation of the right to bear arms

The Kansas Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled in February 2025 that the state’s constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” should be applied independently of, and not concurrently with, the Second Amendment.

In 2010, Kansas voters amended the state constitution, replacing the guarantee of the “right to bear arms” for “defense and safety” with explicit protection of an individual’s “right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home, and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for other lawful purposes.”

in state vs. hallMauricio Hall argued that his felony possession conviction violated state amendments. After conducting rigorous research, the Kansas Court of Appeals rejected his constitutional argument, holding that the state’s ban on gun possession by people convicted of certain felonies for several years after release was narrowly tailored to the compelling public safety interest.

In reaching this result, the court refused bridgeThe “history and tradition” test to determine whether laws regulating firearms are constitutional under the Second Amendment. The court said there was a “significant textual gap” between Kansas’ Right to Arms Clause and the Second Amendment, and it “strongly disagrees” with a lockstep approach. It went on to say that the purpose of the 2010 amendment was to “constitutionalize the rights of gun owners” recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. District of Columbia v. Hellera 5-4 vote said the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a handgun for self-defense. The court held that the state amendments did not reflect an intent to reflect the subsequent evolution of federal rights after enactment of the federal law.Heller.

of bridge This test does not map neatly to state constitutions, especially when it comes to protecting the state’s right to bear arms. bridge“When challenging gun regulations based on state constitutional protections, courts now face uncertainty about both the governing legal review and the relevant historical evidence,” said Andrew Willinger of the Duke Firearms Law Center.

age limit for gun ownership

In May, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously upheld a law that prohibits anyone under 21 from carrying a handgun in public unless they have undergone military training.

in Stevens vs. StateThomas Stevens, 20, challenged the law based on the Georgia Constitution’s Right to Bear Arms Clause, not the Second Amendment. Stevens asked the high court to introduce stricter scrutiny from federal decisions and a “history and tradition” test into state jurisprudence.

In rejecting his claim, the court relied on longstanding precedent interpreting state provisions that explicitly give lawmakers “the power to prescribe the manner in which arms are carried.” Under this provision, the court stated that “restrictions do not violate the constitutional right to bear arms unless they are ‘unreasonable’ or ‘arbitrary'” and do not amount to “a complete denial of the right to bear arms.” Stevens said he was unable to make a convincing argument for introducing a federal test into state right-to-bear-arms case law, adding that language giving Congress the power to regulate weapons makes sense. The States Clause is “significantly different” from the Second Amendment.

Waiver of the Right to Bear Arms

in State vs. Colethe Iowa Supreme Court held that because Jordan Cole agreed to the terms of a protective order that expressly prohibited him from possessing firearms, he voluntarily waived his claim to the right to bear arms arising from that order.

The decision provides “a practical path to constitutionally disarming individuals subject to domestic violence protection orders in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s broken Second Amendment ruling.” RahimiProfessor Eric Ruben recently wrote: “Rahimi The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision upholds firearm bans in conjunction with restraining orders only if the judge finds that the defendant poses a ‘credible threat,’ and many state protective orders lacking such a finding are in constitutional limbo,” Ruben explained. call “We faced that gap.”

• • •

The majority of cases regarding the right to bear arms in the United States are heard in state courts. The above decisions highlight the difficulty these courts face in navigating recent federal jurisprudence. “There is little relief in sight for state courts struggling to interpret the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions,” Reuben wrote.

Kathrina Szymborski Wolfkot state court report Senior Attorney and Manager of the Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Chihiro Isozaki is a consultant in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Recommended citation: Kathrina Szymborski Wolfkot & Chihiro Isozaki, Litigation trends: State courts challenge gun rightsSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (January 27, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/case-trends-state-courts-grapple-gun-rights

Back-to-school and deep freezes are a good time to familiarize yourself with state public law. Over time, several scholars have investigated state power and interstate conflict in federalist systems. Here is an overview of the new features.

Federalism, conflict, and interstate tensions

In “Agonistic Federationism,” Aziz Huq and Zak Clopton observe the emergence of “no-holds-barred” conflict between states and the national government. They describe potential state responses to interstate conflict, identify unresolved doctrinal questions raised by this era of heightened intergovernmental struggle, such as the anti-commander problem, and sketch possible endgames. A valuable and sobering read.

In “The Tenacious Power of Constitutional Torts,” Joanna Schwartz emphasizes the benefits of suing the government for violations of constitutional rights, writing against a literature that often emphasizes the drawbacks and limitations of such lawsuits. (Although her article focuses on Section 1983 lawsuits against state and local officials, she also notes that state “reverse 1983” laws have increased interest in federal employee liability.)

Noah Chauvin’s recent essay, “Can States Force ICE to Remove Masks?” provides a negative answer to that question, while also highlighting other ways states may oppose this practice.

Ethan Lowens’ new article focuses on rising tensions between the states. What happens if states increase criminalization of acts that are legal in other states (such as abortion or gun ownership), leading to unwanted extradition requests? In “Interstate Extradition,” Lowens proposes amending the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act to give state governors reciprocal authority to “refuse unwanted extradition requests,” an approach he says is consistent with historical practice.

state court

Several new articles examine state courts. The essay “Court Reform and State Constitutions” by Brina Godard and I examines state court reform through the lens of state constitutions. State legislatures routinely seek to shape state judicial outcomes by changing the structure and powers of state courts. We argue that while state constitutions do not prohibit measures to align state courts with popular will, such changes require at least public involvement and review, which is sorely lacking today.

Other new research examines state court decision-making methodologies. In “The Seeds of Lockstepping in State Constitutions,” Michael L. Smith details some of the unique ways state courts follow federal precedent. Darrell A.H. Miller’s essay “Lockstepping Structure” takes a skeptical look at the phenomenon of state courts following federal precedent on questions of government structure. And Selena Maeli’s essay, “History and Tradition of Constitutional Interpretation: State Resistance,” identifies and assesses how state courts have reasoned about postwar history.dobbs Abortion incident. (Mayeri and Miller’s article, as well as others discussed in this post, Wisconsin Law Review Concentrate on state public law. )

Recent research has also addressed important issues related to litigation and redress for state constitutional violations. Sarah Swan’s essay “The Logic of Torts for State Constitutional Injuries” provides insight into whether and when state constitutions include an implied right of action for state constitutional violations. Jonathan Marshfield’s article, “Rethinking Structural Injunctions in State Constitutional Litigation,” argues that while federal courts have long been wary of remedies that involve courts in agency reform, a number of differences in state courts justify a stronger remedial role.

state constitution

New research also sheds light on issues of rights and structure in state constitutions.

Adam Davidson’s article, “No Exceptions: A New Movement to Abolish Slavery and Involuntary Servitude,” examines recent state constitutional amendments that would completely ban both slavery and involuntary servitude, with exceptions for crimes contained in the Thirteenth Amendment. Davidson addresses important issues in the area of ​​state constitutions. Why don’t these reforms lead to change on the ground, in this case forced prison labor? He persuasively argues that organizing, litigation, structural reform, and political struggle all need to work in tandem to achieve change.

Additional articles and essays explore the potential for states’ constitutional rights in other areas. In “State Constitutional Duties and Public Speech,” Scott Voorhies argues that state constitutions, based on the language of their speech provisions and the political theory underlying the government’s fiduciary duty, may provide greater protection for public official speech than the federal Constitution provides. Garcetti v. Ceballos framework. And in “State Constitutions and the Right to Gender Autonomy,” Katie Eyer analyzes how state constitutional rights provisions can support the right to determine one’s gender without state intervention.

Gregory Schwab’s article, “The Governor’s Emergency Powers,” looks from rights to structure, criticizing state laws that stripped governors of their emergency powers in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Schwab argues that while this legislative backlash is constitutionally questionable and potentially disastrous in practice, more prudent reforms could rein in governors without catering to short-sighted legislative politics.

Lucien Ferguson’s article, “Challenging State Capture,” suggests that when there are indicators of capture in state law, courts should apply a stricter standard than the barren rational basis test. Ferguson grounds this standard in state constitutional constraints on legislative power and notes that some state courts have already applied variations of this enhanced review.

state agency

The new article also takes into account certain agencies of state government. In this election year, I’d like to highlight a few things that focus on elections and democracy. John J. Martin’s article “Unilateral Election Administration” (AALS Election Law Division Distinguished Scholarship Award Winner) draws attention to an understudied feature of election administration. American elections are generally decentralized, with power residing in states and localities, but each state has a single actor with the potential power to influence election results: an election official. This article considers how to protect these unitary actors from partisan manipulation.

Derek Klinger’s paper, “Using Unclaimed Funds for Election Litigation,” which won a contest sponsored by Auburn University, offers a practical solution to a pressing problem. He has proposed that states could use some of their unclaimed funds (assets such as abandoned bank accounts) to cover election administration costs.

Finally, the essay “The Problem of Compliance with Election Laws” by Lisa Manheim identifies the compliance standards that play a key role in election laws across the country. These standards determine how fully various election rules must be followed to be considered satisfied. For example, whether strict compliance or only substantive compliance is required. Manheim deftly shows that while compliance standards make intuitive sense, the case law surrounding them is complex. She gives suggestions for improvement.

• • •

We wish everyone a safe and warm start to the spring semester. As always, feel free to send me new creations my way!

Miriam Seifter is the Richard E. Johnson Bascom Professor of Law and faculty co-director of the National Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin School of Law.

Recommended quote: Miriam Seifter New Year’s Scholarship Summary: Federal-State Disputes, State Courts, and Election AdministrationSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (January 26, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/new-year-scholarship-roundup-federal-state-conflict-state-courts-and