The Honorable William M. Gabler, Sr. v. Crime Victims Rights Board, 2017 WI 67

Background

Judge William M. Gabler postponed sentencing in a 2012 sexual-assault matter after weighing victim interests, defendant interests, and administration-of-justice concerns; victim K.L. complained to DOJ/CVS and then to the Crime Victims Rights Board (Board).
The Board issued a probable-cause finding and later a Final Decision concluding Gabler violated statutory and constitutional victims' rights and announced it would issue a Report and Recommendation to the judge.
Gabler sought circuit-court review under Wis. Stat. ch. 227; the circuit court reversed the Board and ordered dismissal with prejudice; the Board appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Core legal question: whether statutes authorizing the Board (Wis. Stat. §§ 950.09(2)(a),(2)(c)-(d),(3) and 950.11) permit an executive entity to review, sanction, or otherwise discipline a judge for exercises of judicial discretion without violating the separation of powers and the Supreme Court’s exclusive disciplinary authority.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court (lead opinion) held the challenged statutory provisions unconstitutional as applied to judges, voided the Board’s actions against Gabler, and affirmed the circuit court.

Issues

Issue	Gabler's Argument	Board/State's Argument	Held
Whether the Board may review and adjudicate complaints about a judge’s exercise of judicial discretion under Wis. Stat. ch. 950	Board action intrudes on the judiciary’s exclusive adjudicative authority and impermissibly burdens judicial independence	Chapter 950 implements Article I, §9m and authorizes Board review/remedies for victims’ rights; review is permissible and subject to judicial review	Board may not constitutionally review and adjudicate judges’ discretionary decisions; such review violates separation of powers
Whether the Board may issue reprimands, seek equitable relief, or pursue forfeitures against judges under §950.09(2)(a),(c),(d) and §950.11	Those sanctions amount to discipline and personal liability that only the Supreme Court (via judicial commission) may impose; they chill independent judicial decision‑making	Statutory remedies are legislative implementations of victims’‑rights amendment and are necessary to vindicate victims; Board’s powers are constrained (e.g., cannot modify convictions) and subject to Chapter 227 review	Statutory authorization to reprimand, enjoin, or financially penalize judges is unconstitutional as applied to judges; Board’s remedies here void
Whether issuance of non‑binding reports and recommendations under §950.09(3) is permissible when they address judicial practice	Even nonbinding reports, if targeted at particular judges’ decisions, can function as discipline and intrude on judicial domain	§950.09(3) authorizes non‑binding policy recommendations to improve victims’ services and does not bind courts	Majority treats §950.09(3) as unconstitutional as applied to judges (insofar as it was used to discipline); concurrence would uphold nonbinding reports as constitutional policy recommendations
Proper scope of judicial remedies for victims’ rights; whether victims have alternative remedies in court	Victims can and should use court procedures (e.g., §950.105, mandamus, supervisory writs) rather than executive disciplinary mechanisms against judges	Board’s statutory scheme provides legislative remedies required by Article I, §9m and fills gaps when Judicial Commission or courts are not appropriate	Court recognizes victims retain procedural remedies in the courts; but Board may not provide disciplinary remedies against judges under ch. 950

Key Cases Cited

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (establishes judicial power to "say what the law is")
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (separation of powers and structural allocation of federal powers)
Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (Congress cannot confer Article III judicial power on non‑Article III entities)
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, 514 U.S. 211 (other branches cannot prescribe rules of decision or encroach on judicial functions)
In re Complaint Against Grady, 118 Wis. 2d 762 (rejecting legislative imposition of case‑decision deadlines; judicial domain for timing and administration of cases)
Schilling v. Crime Victims Rights Bd., 278 Wis. 2d 216 (2005) (interpretation of the victims’ amendment and limits on Board authority)
Will v. United States, 449 U.S. 200 (judicial independence protected from diminution of judicial authority via other branches)