On Point

State v. R.R.L., 2026AP956, 7/1/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

“Roger” contends that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition because, in determining that termination was in the best interest of his son, “Marcus,” the court failed to consider relevant facts regarding Marcus’s relationships with other family members even though such relationships may not have been substantial. COA affirms.

State v. G.L., 2026AP865, 7/1/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

“Gwen” challenges the termination of her rights to her child, “Annie,” on the basis that the state presented insufficient evidence to the jury that the Division of Milwaukee Child Welfare (DMCW) made a reasonable effort to provide her with court-ordered services and that DMCW did not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). COA affirms.

State v. Michael P. Bundy, 2025AP1072, 6/25/26, District IV (not eligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order suppressing the fruits of a traffic stop because an officer’s mistake of law regarding the driver’s suspected violation of the window tinting regulation did not provide reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.

McCarthy v. Hernandez, USSC No. 25-748, 6/22/2026, reversing a decision of the 2nd Circuit, Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

SCOTUS reversed the court of appeals’ decision granting habeas relief to a man convicted in 2016 of murdering a six-year old boy in 1979 because the lower court did not correctly apply clearly established federal law regarding the jury’s role in assessing the legality of the defendant’s confessions.

State v. N.K.B., 2026 WI 22, 6/26/26, affirming a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity

SCOW holds that criminal courts cannot order involuntary medication of a defendant committed for purposes of competency restoration on the basis that he or she is dangerous.

Chatrie v. United States, USSC No. 25-112, 6/29/2026, reversing a decision of the 4th Circuit, Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

SCOTUS determined that police conduct a search when they gain access to location history data from a third party because a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his or her cell phone’s location.  The Court remanded to the federal court of appeals to determine whether the geofence warrant at issue was reasonable.

State v. Dominic L. Brister, 2024AP1516-CR, 6/30/26, District I (recommended for publication); case activity

COA issues a broad defense win, holding that the First Amendment forbids the extreme no-contact order entered in this case.

Waukesha County v. R.D.T., 2026 WI 24, 6/30/26, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity

SCOW refuses an invitation to retreat from previous decisions making it difficult for a Chapter 51 appeal to be moot but ultimately holds that R.D.T. is not entitled to relief as a result of the allegedly improper admission of hearsay evidence.

State v. Nicholas B. Selerski., , 2024AP1846-CR, 6/25/26, District IV (certification opinion); case activity

In a case that might make many appellate attorneys justifiably nervous, COA asks whether we’ve all been getting sentencing law wrong for decades.

Outagamie County v. M.J.B., 2026 WI 23, 6/26/26, reversing a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity

In a unanimous decision, SCOW held that the deadline to provide access to examiners’ 48 hours in advance of the final hearing is not central to Chapter 51’s statutory scheme, violating the deadline does not divest the circuit court of competency to proceed, and the circuit court must therefore review whether failing to comply with the deadline was harmless error.