Wisconsin’s liberal-controlled Supreme Court just overturned a 175-year-old abortion ban that had restricted reproductive rights in the state since the fall of Roe v. Wade, delivering a significant victory to abortion advocates while sparking outrage among conservative justices who called it a jaw-dropping exercise of judicial will.
Key Takeaways
- Wisconsin’s Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the 1849 law does not ban abortion, allowing the procedure to continue in the state.
- The court’s liberal majority determined the 1849 law was a feticide law, not an abortion ban, and was effectively repealed by later abortion regulations.
- Conservative justices strongly dissented, accusing the majority of judicial overreach and erasing laws they personally dislike.
- Abortion providers had already resumed services in Wisconsin following a lower court order in summer 2023.
- The ruling maintains Wisconsin’s divided government will likely prevent immediate legislative action on abortion until after the 2026 midterms.
Liberal Court Reinterprets 175-Year-Old Law
In a decisive 4-3 ruling on July 2, 2025, Wisconsin’s liberal-majority Supreme Court declared that the state’s 1849 abortion law does not constitute an abortion ban, effectively ensuring continued abortion access throughout the state. The court determined that comprehensive legislation passed over the last five decades had effectively superseded the 19th-century statute. Justice Rebecca Dallet, writing for the majority, emphasized that the case centered on giving effect to decades of legislative action regarding abortion regulations.
“This case is about giving effect to 50 years’ worth of laws passed by the legislature about virtually every aspect of abortion including where, when, and how health-care providers may lawfully perform abortions,” said Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Dallet
The ruling resolves legal uncertainty that had plagued Wisconsin since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Following that landmark decision, abortion services had temporarily ceased in Wisconsin while providers grappled with potential legal ramifications under the 1849 law. The court has now determined that subsequent legislation effectively repealed the old statute, which they interpreted as a feticide law rather than a restriction on voluntary abortions.
Conservative Justices Blast Decision as Judicial Activism
The court’s conservative minority reacted with sharp dissent to the ruling. Justice Rebecca Bradley condemned the decision, claiming it represented judicial overreach of the highest order. Her blistering critique accused the liberal majority of simply eliminating a law they personally opposed rather than interpreting it according to its original meaning. The conservative bloc clearly viewed this as judicial activism at its most blatant, bypassing the legislature’s rightful role.
“The majority erases a law it does not like, making four lawyers sitting on the state’s highest court more powerful than the People’s representatives in the legislature,” said Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley.
Justice Annette Ziegler’s dissent was equally scathing, describing the majority’s decision as “a jaw-dropping exercise of judicial will” and criticizing their selective approach to which abortion statutes remain in force. The conservative justices argued that if the 1849 law needed changing, that responsibility belonged to the legislature, not the court. Their strong language reflects the deep ideological divide on the court regarding judicial interpretation and the limits of court authority.
Political Implications and Future Battles
This ruling represents a significant victory for President Trump’s opponents who have spent the past three years fighting to restore abortion access in states with restrictive laws. Wisconsin’s abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, had already resumed services in the summer of 2023 following a lower court order, but this Supreme Court decision cements their legal standing. The ruling effectively ends one chapter in Wisconsin’s abortion debate while setting the stage for future constitutional battles.
This week marks three years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the federal right to abortion and shifting the fight for reproductive rights to the states. https://t.co/D9MIvWbbWX
— WKOW 27 News (@WKOW) June 26, 2025
“We conclude that comprehensive legislation enacted over the last 50 years regulating in detail the ‘who, what, where, when, and how’ of abortion so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion,” wrote the Wisconsin Supreme Court majority.
With Wisconsin’s divided government—a GOP-controlled Legislature and Democratic Governor Tony Evers—immediate legislative action to restrict abortion access remains unlikely. However, the 2026 midterm elections could dramatically alter this landscape, with both the governor’s office and numerous legislative seats up for grabs. Conservative lawmakers will likely make abortion restrictions a central campaign issue, while Democrats will point to this ruling as justification for maintaining their hold on the governor’s mansion.
Legal Clarity After Years of Uncertainty
This decisive ruling finally provides clarity after years of litigation that followed the Dobbs decision in 2022. Attorney General Josh Kaul had consistently argued that the 1849 law was invalidated by subsequent abortion legislation, a position now validated by the state’s highest court. Justice Dallet carefully noted in the majority opinion that while this ruling preserves abortion access under current law, the legislature maintains its authority to enact new abortion regulations in the future.
“The legislature, as the people’s representatives, remains free to change the laws with respect to abortion in the future,” said Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Dallet.
The Wisconsin decision stands in stark contrast to conservative-controlled states that have maintained or strengthened abortion restrictions following the fall of Roe v. Wade. It demonstrates how liberal-controlled state courts have become frontline defenders of abortion access, often using novel legal interpretations to protect reproductive rights. This ruling will undoubtedly influence similar legal challenges in other states with pre-Roe abortion bans, potentially setting precedent for how such laws are interpreted nationwide.
