Announcer:
The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production.

Frederica Freyberg:
Fierce winter snowfall across the state and more jarring federal actions hit close to home.
I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” we continue our coverage of candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. And as the dominoes fall from Washington, vital medical research hangs in the balance. Legal experts warn of executive reach, and farmers are left holding the bag. It’s “Here & Now” for February 14.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:
The race for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court could break spending records and tonight we bring you an interview with liberal candidate Susan Crawford. Crawford is currently a Dane County circuit court judge. She previously worked for Democrat Jim Doyle, both when he was the attorney general and as his chief legal counsel when Doyle was governor. “Here & Now” senior political reporter Zac Schultz sat down with Crawford in Madison.

Zac Schultz:
Let’s start with your judicial philosophy. How would you define it, and what does it mean to you?

Susan Crawford:
Yeah. You know, I view myself as a really common-sense judge. So I focus on, first of all, making sure that I know what the facts are in any case. I’ve listened to the evidence and just determine what the truth is. I think that’s a really important first step for any judge. And then, of course, I make sure I get the law right after listening to the lawyers tell me what their positions are. And then I have to make a decision after I have those two things established and I pay a lot of attention to how my decision is going to impact the people in a case. The decisions I make are not abstract principles. They are going to affect real people’s lives. So I do pay close attention to the context of my decisions. And taking that up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I will also consider how the decisions that I’m involved in as a justice will be applied in future cases, because at the Supreme Court level, those cases are precedent. And you have to think ahead to other applications.

Zac Schultz:
For the general public that doesn’t have a lot of interaction with the legal system, they’ve kind of developed the shorthand of judicial conservative or judicial liberal and that’s often how we define the breakdown in the Supreme Court. How would you define the distinction between those two categories, if there is one?

Susan Crawford:
You know, I think that kind of shorthand is actually not that useful. What I do is just try to be fair and impartial in every case and apply the law to, you know, the facts that I’ve determined to be true in the way that does justice and protects the interests in the case, the people in the case, the way the law was intended.

Zac Schultz:
There’s been a lot of overturning of precedent recently, both at the national and at the state level.

Susan Crawford
Yes.

Zac Schultz:
What are the factors that you would look at when you decide to overturn a case history?

Susan Crawford:
Yeah, well, I have not been in a position to do that, of course, because I’m currently a circuit court judge. And on the circuit court, we are required to apply precedent. I think that as a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, what I would do, first of all, if asked to overturn precedent, is to consider what the attorney’s arguments are in favor or against doing so. You know, typically, justices are not coming to that conclusion on their own. They’re doing it because one of the parties in the case is asking them to overturn a prior precedent on grounds that it was wrongly decided. So the first thing I would do in a particular case is determine how I think the law ought to be applied in that case, and often there’s not a need to actually overturn a precedent, but rather to distinguish it, to say, well, there are some different facts in that case, and maybe it should be applied more narrowly or there’s an exception that can be made in this new case. So I think it’s a rare instance where a precedent actually has to be overturned. But, you know, I would do the same thing I just described. I would look at the facts of the case, listen to the legal arguments on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I would certainly listen to what my fellow justices had to say and what their positions were before making an important decision like that to actually overturn a precedent.

Zac Schultz:
In a couple of recent cases regarding redistricting, at least with the least change factor, and also drop boxes, they overruled some recent precedent. Does it make a difference how long the precedent has been there?

Susan Crawford:
Well, I don’t think it does necessarily. I think it’s a factor, but it is certainly not the only factor and probably not the most important one that I’d be looking at in making such a decision.

Zac Schultz:
And then how do you contrast that to something like the Dobbs decision, which obviously overturned the major, long-standing precedent?

Susan Crawford:
Right. Well, you know I think the Dobbs case was wrongly decided, and it represents the first time, to my knowledge, that the United States Supreme Court has ever undone a long-standing, constitutionally vested right recognized under our U.S. Constitution. And I think that the case was poorly reasoned by the majority on the Supreme Court and that’s very well laid out in the dissent to that case.

Zac Schultz:
Brad Schimel’s partisan history as a candidate is well documented. It’s right next to his name on every election but you’ve worked in Democratic administrations, both in the attorney general and the governor’s office and in private practice, you have argued cases on behalf of issues that align with the Democratic Party. And he argues that you are just as partisanly aligned. How do you respond to that?

Susan Crawford:
Well, I think he’s wrong. He — I have never been involved in partisan politics, either as a candidate or with any involvement personally at either the county or state or national level in partisan politics. That’s Brad Schimel’s whole career. And again, he, you know, he betrays his partisan roots by taking positions on every case that is pending just about in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, telling folks how he would decide them in a way that is, you know, he’s prejudging those cases. That’s very prejudicial to the parties in those cases, particularly when he, I believe, is making those decisions based on what he reads in the newspaper and not on the evidence in those cases or the legal arguments of the parties or any deliberations, obviously, with other justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. So there’s a very sharp contrast in how we are approaching this race. I’m approaching it as a judge, and I want to be a good, fair, impartial, common-sense justice for the people of Wisconsin. Brad Schimel is approaching it as if it was a partisan race, and says he wants to get on the Supreme Court to help conservatives win elections.

Zac Schultz:
In 2023, Janet Protasiewicz talked about her values when she was running, and that brought a new attention and a new approach, as opposed to prior candidates in that race. Do you think it was appropriate for her to talk about her values? Are you wanting to talk about your values? How does that reframe the public’s expectation of a candidate for this office?

Susan Crawford:
Yeah. Well, I think first of all that Janet Protasiewicz is a real asset to the Supreme Court. I think she is doing a great job, and I think that she also handled herself well in her campaign. You know, this is a different race and I, I want voters to get to know me and get to know who I am and what kind of justice they can expect me to be on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. So there are appropriate ways for candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court or any court to talk about their experience, what they’ve worked for and their values and I will do that. But I will stop short of taking a position on any case in or, or likely to be in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I think that’s improper. And again, it’s prejudging cases. It’s prejudicial to the parties and unfortunately is what my opponent is doing.

Zac Schultz:
Judge Crawford, thanks for your time.

Susan Crawford:
Thank you so much, Zac.

Frederica Freyberg:
In other news, a Trump administration policy to limit the overhead expenses of medical research has powerhouse research universities like UW-Madison reeling. Most medical research is funded by the National Institutes for Health. The new policy would limit NIH funding for indirect costs to 15%, far below the 55.5% overhead costs at Madison. The cut is currently blocked by a federal court. UW School of Medicine and Public Health Dean Robert Golden is here to describe the implications. And doctor, thanks very much for being here.

Robert Golden:
It’s a pleasure.

Frederica Freyberg:
So what would the loss of $65 million, which is what I understand it is, a year by way of cuts to these indirect costs mean to research at UW-Madison?

Robert Golden:
This would be devastating. This would be apocalyptic. This would mean that we would have to dramatically scale back and probably end really important research going from the bench to the bedside into the community in areas like cancer, diabetes, heart disease and neurologic illnesses.

Frederica Freyberg:
So UW lists those costs again as being 55.5% of its research expenditures. What does that go toward?

Robert Golden:
Well, here’s one way to think about it. It’s Valentine’s Day, and I’m going to cook dinner for Shannon to celebrate. When I go out and buy the groceries, the eggs and the cheese for a quiche. Those are direct costs, but I need to have a refrigerator to keep them safe. I need to be paying my electric bills in order to have the cookware work. And so the indirect costs are literally freezers that literally keep things safe for both clinical as well as pre-clinical research. And they are essential otherwise the food goes bad and you can’t prepare dinner.

Frederica Freyberg:
So is it possible to reduce those costs to 15% and if forced, what goes?

Robert Golden:
Well, the infrastructure goes. Our equipment becomes old and not replaced. New buildings are not built. Renovations for both equipment and the actual buildings are not there. The staff who are required to fill out all the forms for the federal government, ensuring that our people in the labs are safe cannot be kept on. So it would be absolutely devastating.

Frederica Freyberg:
And yet it’s being made out as bloated, administrative expenditures to pad the books on the backs of taxpayers. What’s your response to that?

Robert Golden:
Anybody who has been in academics, anybody who has been in research, would never use the word bloated. Shoestring, living on the edge, funding already is so competitive and so low that every day, every investigator is looking for more efficient ways for her to keep her research going.

Frederica Freyberg:
What research is happening right now that would be hurt?

Robert Golden:
Oh, we have important clinical trials in cancer, for example, for patients who have failed to respond to conventional treatments. These are important not simply for the science, but for those individual patients. We have new, promising treatments that have gone from basic discoveries into practice, looking at potential new therapies for blinding illness. We have a lot of research that really focuses in on asthma and childhood asthma in particular, nationally renowned research. All of this, including the laboratory basic science that leads to new therapeutics, as well as the clinical trials looking for safety and effectiveness, would be at serious risk.

Frederica Freyberg:
What are some of the kind of famous breakthroughs found through research at UW-Madison?

Robert Golden:
Well, in fact, one of the very first medications for cancer treatment, 5-Fluorouracil, was discovered right here. We have also had amazing technological breakthroughs with TomoTherapy, a sophisticated way of doing imaging that not only has helped countless patients worldwide but has led to spin-off companies. It’s built up our economy. There are so many exciting new breakthroughs going on, but they build on a tradition that has been present here ever since the founding of the NIH.

Frederica Freyberg:
So the cuts are currently blocked, as we mentioned. What measure of solace is that?

Robert Golden:
Well, it’s just a temporary reprieve. We do hope — you have to be hopeful in order to be in academics nowadays, that patient voices, voices of reason will lead to a more than temporary restraint. It’s not to say that our system is perfect. It’s one of the best in the world. But there might be ways to continue what’s already happening, to look for the most efficient ways that we can continue to invest in research so that we’re investing in the health of people and populations.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. Dr. Robert Golden, thanks very much.

Robert Golden:
Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:
As to the NIH funding cuts, the Universities of Wisconsin president said taking a meat cleaver to funding is wrong. Well, it’s happening throughout U.S. agencies at the hands of Elon Musk and President Trump. And now there are calls to impeach judges who are temporarily blocking some of the cost cutting moves. Is any of this constitutional, given the separation of powers? We turn to conservative attorney Rick Esenberg, president of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. And thanks very much for being here.

Rick Esenberg:
Thank you for having me on.

Frederica Freyberg:
So how do these moves to eliminate agencies and spending square with the separation of powers under the Constitution?

Rick Esenberg:
Yeah, I think it’s fair to say that the answer is mixed. There are some things that the president clearly has, or a reasonable argument can be made that he ought to have the power to do. And there are some things that are more problematic. You mentioned the unilateral reduction in overhead costs for NIH grants. That probably violates a statute and that Congress can constitutionally impose on the president. There’s other instances where the president is pausing funding to review the way that a congressional mandate is being carried out, which are defensible. There are yet other areas where we don’t know what’s going to happen. I mean, there are tweets in which, you know, claims are made that USAID can be, is going to be abolished. You probably can’t do that. But can you redirect its funding consistent with congressional appropriations? Yeah, you probably can do that. So this is why I say that all of this stuff is dependent upon the particular context in which it arises, and precisely what’s being done. And in some instances, we don’t really know yet. And the criticism that we’re hearing is premature. And yet other instances, the criticism is well taken.

Frederica Freyberg:
What’s your response to people like Musk saying that judges are abusing their power and calling to impeach them for making decisions, like around temporary injunctions?

Rick Esenberg:
Well, I think that’s ridiculous. I mean, I think that there are always going to be disputes about the extent of executive authority. There were all sorts of disputes during the Biden administration where the president, you know, claimed the right to be able to unilaterally do a bunch of things and litigation ensued and the courts ruled. And oftentimes the Biden administration lost. Sometimes it won. And I think the same thing is, is going to happen here. And I think to say that judges who disagree or have a different view of what the law requires ought to be impeached for their, you know, for trying to do their jobs is something that I, I can’t endorse. And I’m not, I’m not on board with.

Frederica Freyberg:
So there is reporting that the Trump administration has been flouting judges’ orders. How perilous is that or is it?

Rick Esenberg:
Well, I don’t know that they have been flouting judges’ orders. I mean, I think you had a tweet, I think it was a tweet by JD Vance, which, you know, people have interpreted as expressing an intent to flout judicial orders. That would be wrong. On the other hand, you have comments by, you know, President Trump and the Oval Office that he always abides by judicial orders. And so, you know, there can sometimes be and have sometimes in American history been conflicts between the executive and the judicial branch about, you know, the extent of judicial authority. But as a general rule, I think that the executive, the president of the United States controls the executive branch. The president `of the United States does not control the government. There are going to be disputes about where the boundaries between these things lie and those disputes, when there’s a dispute, those disputes are ultimately to be resolved by the judiciary. That’s our separation of powers. And I think that that’s what we ought to have guide us as we go forward in the argument about all of this stuff.

Frederica Freyberg:
Indeed. Rick Esenberg, thanks very much.

Rick Esenberg:
Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:
Despite promises from President Trump to target undocumented immigrants with a criminal record, pressure on Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to make arrests expands that scope. Fears remain high as stories spread on social media that members of tribes in Wisconsin have been stopped by ICE officials. To ease concerns, Ho-Chunk Nation President Jon Greendeer has promised his people free tribal IDs, as well as reimbursement for the cost to obtain a U.S. passport.

Jon Greendeer:
The United States passport is probably what I feel is the most legitimate form of a universally accepted form of identification. And so the scrutiny for securing your passport is, is pretty significant. … I tried to do my best to articulate that the passport will be available to tribal members and their children, whether or not they are enrolled, enrollable or not enrolled. … You have to be strong for a family, but you send your brown kids out the door and you don’t have control over, you know, their environment. You know, we — and this is something that is endemic to a lot of tribal communities that we worry about our kids every day before ICE. You know, we didn’t need ICE to scare us and make us feel uneasy as parents.

Frederica Freyberg:
Wisconsin farmers are likely on edge watching the slashing and freezing of federal funding, billions of dollars of which goes toward farm programs. President of the Wisconsin Farmers Union, Darin Von Ruden joins us, and thanks for being here.

Darin Von Ruden:
Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
So in the midst of moves to eliminate things like world food aid, freeze federal grants and loans, and the latest congressional resolution to cut the USDA budget, how on edge are Wisconsin farmers?

Darin Von Ruden:
Well, I think really on edge, you know, especially looking at folks that have applied for grants in the past, mainly in the renewable energy side. We have a next-door neighbor that installed the system this summer. Just put it online here a few weeks ago and got a notice on Tuesday morning that the $70,000 grant that he was supposed to be receiving from the federal government is now on hold. So, you know, that’s not pocket change. It’s not something that you can just go out and make up in a couple days. So, you know, we’re really hoping that the freeze gets taken back and that those funds get distributed. But then also looking at what’s happening with the USAID program, we haven’t heard directly from any farmers here in the state of Wisconsin, but certainly from some of the other states around the upper Midwest and corn and soybean programs that are involved in that really on edge, because they’ve become accustomed to providing those corn and soybeans for that program.

Frederica Freyberg:
Yeah, indeed. So the first program you talked about with the $70,000 investment, this is the kind of grant program where the farmers are supposed to be reimbursed for work they’ve already done.

Darin Von Ruden:
Yeah, it’s the Renewable Energy for America program. And, you know, it’s a long-standing program. It’s not like it’s new. It’s been around for a dozen, well, probably 15 years already. And it’s really to help put solar and wind on your — either on your buildings or on your property and, and get some help with it. It isn’t like it’s paying for the whole system. It just provides a little bit more of an incentive to get it installed.

Frederica Freyberg:
How likely is it that anything to do with climate mitigation or alternative energy will, in fact, be on the chopping block?

Darin Von Ruden:
You know, with the words coming out of the president’s mouth, I think it’s a real good chance that that’s going to happen.

Frederica Freyberg:
So as farmers also look ahead to spring planting, what is the uncertainty like?

Darin Von Ruden:
Well, it’s pretty high right now, you know, because of really two factors. If the USAID program does get stalled, that’s just going to back up a supply chain. There’s a lot of corn and soybeans that go into that market. And so that just means lower prices. Anytime that there is excess food, it’s going to mean lower prices. And fertilizer and all our input costs certainly are not going down with some of the tariff trade war talks. Those prices are probably just going to go up. So we’re going to continue to see that difference of not being able to pay our bills at the end of the month.

Frederica Freyberg:
Just taking a little bit of a turn here, we keep reading that bird flu is on the increase. What are dairy farmers thinking about that?

Darin Von Ruden:
Well, you know, very concerned. And you know, on two fronts there are two. I think number one, not knowing when it’s going to stop or if it’s going to infect your herd. But number two, being able to get the accurate information that we need because of another one of the things that President Biden or President Trump has done and taking that information away from the public health service.

Frederica Freyberg:
Are you getting any of that kind of information from state ag officials?

Darin Von Ruden:
Yes. They’ve been good about trying to continue to keep that information in front of us. And I know that gap has a weekly information meeting for anybody in agriculture that wants to participate. So we’ve been able to get that there. But when you’re looking at that disease, it really is affecting all the countries. So trying to figure out where the spread is going to next is vital. And that takes national help to get that done.

Frederica Freyberg:
So we’ve been talking about all manner of kind of uncertainties. What are your members telling you in the midst of this?

Darin Von Ruden:
Well, you know, certainly understand that there’s some things that do need to happen, but certainly the amount or the variability that is happening. You know, we can adjust to certain amounts of things, but with what we’re seeing right now, that uncertainty on, you know, five, six, seven, maybe even eight fronts is totally different than what we’ve seen in the past. You know, we certainly can handle that one or two different things that might affect your bottom line. But when you have so many different things all at once, it gets really scary.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. Well, we will be watching it. Darin Von Ruden, thanks very much.

Darin Von Ruden:
Thank you, Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:
For more on this and other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our website at PBSWisconsin.org and then click on the news tab.
Join us Tuesday for Governor Tony Evers’ 2025 state budget address. It’s live at 7 p.m. on PBS Wisconsin. That’s our program for tonight. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a good weekend.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.