Barbara Crabb

Barbara Crabb

Nonpartisan

United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (senior status)

Tenure

2010 - Present

Years in position

14

Prior offices

United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

---

Education

Bachelor's

University of Wisconsin, 1960

Law

University of Wisconsin Law School, 1962

Personal

Birthplace

Green Bay, Wis.

Barbara Brandriff Crabb is a federal judge on senior status with the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. She joined the court in 1979 after being nominated by President Jimmy Carter. She served the court as chief judge from 1980 to 1996 and from 2001 to 2010. She elected to take senior status beginning on March 24, 2010.

Early life and education

Born in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Crabb graduated from the University of Wisconsin with her bachelor's degree in 1960 and from the University of Wisconsin Law School with her LL.B. in 1962.

Professional career

• 1971 - Present: United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

• 2010 - Present: Senior judge

• 1980-1996, 2001-2010: Chief judge

• 1979-2010: Judge
• 1971-1979: Magistrate judge

• 1970-1971: Research assistant, American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice
• 1968-1969: Research assistant, George Bunn, University of Wisconsin Law School
• 1962-1964: Private practice, Madison, Wis.

Judicial nominations and appointments

Western District of Wisconsin

Crabb was nominated by President Jimmy Carter on July 21, 1979, to a new seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin created by 92 Stat. 1629. Crabb was confirmed by the Senate on October 31, 1979, and she received her commission on November 2, 1979. Crabb served as the district court's chief judge from 1980 to 1996 and again from 2001 to 2010. Crabb elected to take senior status beginning on March 24, 2010. She was succeeded in this position by Judge William Conley.

Senior status announcement

On March 20, 2009, Judge Crabb unexpectedly announced her intention to take senior status.

In her release issued to the Wisconsin media, Crabb stated:

“

Over the past several years, this court’s ever-expanding and increasingly complex caseload has required extraordinary efforts from all of the judges and court staff in order to provide the prompt resolution of cases that all litigants have a right to expect. All indicators suggest that this trend will continue unabated.

”

“

One solution would be to ask Congress to authorize a third judgeship for this court, but this would be a time-consuming and expensive proposition. A more cost-effective and immediate solution would be for me to take senior status. This would allow me to continue my work for the court at a less frenetic pace while opening a full-time position for another federal judge. Given the nation’s current economic straits and the immediate needs of this court, I have decided after considerable reflection that this is the best course for all concerned. Therefore, I have written President Obama to report my intention to take senior status as soon as my successor can be appointed.

”

Noteworthy cases

Wisconsin State Assembly maps and partisan gerrymandering (2016)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (Whitford et al. v. Gill et al., 15-cv-421-bbc)

In June 2012, Democrats assumed a one-vote majority in the Wisconsin State Senate as the result of a series of recall elections. Although Democrats lost the majority five months later, they were able, in the meantime, to compel law firm Michael Best and Friedrich to turn over files related to the 2011 redistricting cycle (Republicans tasked with drafting new maps in 2011 worked out of the Michael Best and Friedrich office in Madison, Wisconsin). Before Democrats assumed the majority, they had asked Michael Best and Friedrich to turn over the requested records, but the firm refused, saying that it answered to the majority leader. Democrats used these records as evidence when they filed suit in federal district court, alleging that the Wisconsin State Assembly map treated voters "unequally, diluting their voting power based on their political beliefs, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection." On November 21, 2016, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin struck down the district map for the Wisconsin State Assembly, finding in favor of the plaintiffs, a group of state Democrats. The court ruled 2-1 on the matter, with Judges Kenneth Ripple and Barbara Crabb forming the majority. Ripple wrote the following in the court's majority opinion:

“	We find that Act 43 [the redistricting plan enacted by the state legislature in 2011] was intended to burden the representational rights of Democratic voters throughout the decennial period by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats. Moreover, as demonstrated by the results of the 2012 and 2014 elections, among other evidence, we conclude that Act 43 has had its intended effect.	”
—Judge Kenneth Ripple

Judge William Griesbach dissented and wrote the following in his dissent:

“	I am unable to accept proof of intent to act for political purposes as a significant part of any test for whether a task constitutionally entrusted to the political branches of government is unconstitutional. If political motivation is improper, then the task of redistricting should be constitutionally assigned to some other body, a change in law we lack any authority to effect.	”
—Judge William Griesbach

The court declined to order a remedy when it issued its ruling. Instead, the court ordered the parties involved in the case to submit briefs outlining recommended remedies within 30 days.

The plaintiffs in the case proposed a three-part test for determining whether illegal partisan gerrymandering has occurred in a state.

1. Intent: "Plaintiffs would have to establish that a state had an intent to gerrymander for partisan advantage."
2. Effect: "Plaintiffs would need to prove a partisan effect by proving that the efficiency gap for a plan exceeds a certain numerical threshold."
3. State interest: "Plaintiffs placed the burden on the defendants to rebut the presumption by showing that the plan 'is the necessary result of a legitimate state policy, or inevitable given the state's underlying political geography.'"

Peter Barca (D), the minority leader of the Wisconsin State Assembly, said, "This is an historic victory for voters and further admonishment of the extremely slanted maps that trample the democratic will of the people of Wisconsin." Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) said, "There are only two things that are certain about this case: it's unprecedented and it isn't over. The state of Wisconsin has competitive legislative districts that meet every traditional principle of redistricting. Republicans win elections because we have better candidates and a better message that continues to resonate with the voters."

On January 27, 2017, the court ordered state lawmakers to draft a remedial redistricting plan for use in the November 2018 election. The court ordered that this plan be adopted by the legislature and signed into law by the governor by November 1, 2017. On March 24, 2017, state attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the district court's ruling.

On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it would hear the case, Gill v. Whitford. The court also voted 5-4 to stay the district court decision that ordered Wisconsin lawmakers to draft new maps by November 1, 2017. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch voted to stay the district court order. Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer dissented. Oral argument in the case took place on October 3, 2017. On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate standing to bring the complaint under Article III of the United States Constitution. The court's opinion, penned by Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Kagan wrote a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Thomas authored an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Gorsuch.

In response to the ruling, Bill Whitford, a plaintiff in the suit, said, "The discouraging thing is just the delay. We have a road map forward ... I don't think we'll have any difficulty meeting the burdens the court asked us to meet." Wisconsin Solicitor General Misha Tseytlin doubted the viability of a further challenge, saying, "I think it is quite notable that [the plaintiffs] put together a failry large, well-funded litigation team, had a four-day trial, and the Supreme Court unanimously held 9-0 they did not prove the basis of standing. The plaintiffs here failed to prove up the minimal standing to even bring a lawsuit."

On September 14, 2018, in response to the high court's ruling in Gill, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Also on September 14, 2018, the Wisconsin Assembly Democratic Committee filed a similar but separate suit in the same court.

Same-sex marriage in Wisconsin (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Wolf and Schumacher et. al. v. Walker et. al., 14-cv-64-bbc)

Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional on June 6, 2014. Crabb wrote in her decision:

“

Quite simply, this case is about liberty and equality, the two cornerstones of the rights protected by the United States Constitution.

”

However the ruling did not remove the ban, it simply stated that the law was unconstitutional. It did give plaintiffs and defendants until June 16th to file proposals as to what actions should be taken in regards to this ruling of constitutionality.

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen filed a motion to have the order stayed by Judge Crabb, while he began the appeal process to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The motion to stay was filed in response to some county clerks issuing same-sex couples marriage licenses. The motion to stay was denied by Judge Crabb on June 9, 2014. In the hearing Crabb restated the fact that she had just ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and she had not issued an injunction allowing marriage licenses to be issued. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed the right of same-sex couples to marry.

National Day of Prayer challenge (2010)

See also: United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., v. President Barack Obama and White House Press Secretary Robert L. Gibbs, 3:08-cv-00588-bbc)

Judge Crabb ruled on April 15, 2010, that the "National Day of Prayer," which was established by Congress in 1952, was unconstitutional. The Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation filed the lawsuit against both the Obama and Bush administrations in order to block the presidents from making the customary annual proclamation of the event.

Judicial free speech rights (2009)

See also: United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Honorable John Siefert, v. James C. Alexander, et al., 3:08-cv-126)

Judge Crabb ruled in a case in which Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge John Siefert had sought the right to join the Democratic Party, endorse then presidential candidate Barack Obama, and personally solicit campaign contributions. Each of these activities was prohibited by the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct.

In March of 2008, Siefert brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the current sitting members of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, arguing that the restrictions violated his First Amendment free speech rights.

On February 18, 2009, Judge Crabb ruled based on a precedent established in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, stating that the Wisconsin Judicial Commission's stance on the code of judicial conduct restricts speech in a way which violates the First Amendment.

See also

• United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
• United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

External links

• Judge Crabb's biography from the Federal Judicial Center

Footnotes

Political offices
Preceded by: NA-New Seat 92 Stat. 1629	Western District of Wisconsin 1979–2010 Seat #2	Succeeded by: William Conley