In a brazen display of partisan judicial arrogance, Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Jill Karofsky and liberal Justice Rebecca Dallet on Wednesday flatly refused to step aside from a high-stakes case involving President Donald Trump’s 2020 Wisconsin campaign attorney Jim Troupis. Troupis had pointed to their earlier public comments about the matter as clear evidence of possible bias.
Troupis, a former judge and longtime Wisconsin attorney, faces 11 felony forgery charges stemming from the so-called “fake electors,” a long-shot but legally debatable effort by Trump allies aimed at challenging Joe Biden’s narrow 2020 victory in Wisconsin by submitting alternate elector certificates. The case, brought by Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul in 2024, has been widely slammed by conservatives as classic lawfare: criminalizing aggressive but non-violent legal strategy that Democrats and their media allies only decry when it’s aimed at their guy.
Troupis asked the state’s highest court to intervene, arguing that Karofsky and Dallet should recuse themselves because of their earlier public statements attacking the very legal theories central to his defense. Both justices issued identical one-sentence orders declaring they saw “no basis” under the Due Process Clause, state statutes, or court rules to step aside.
This is the same liberal-dominated Wisconsin Supreme Court that Democrats fought tooth and nail to flip in recent years, and now it’s delivering exactly the kind of one-sided “justice” critics warned about. Karofsky and Dallet aren’t impartial umpires; they’re political actors in robes who’ve repeatedly signaled their contempt for anything smelling of Trump or election skepticism. Yet here they are, insisting they can fairly judge the man who helped lead the charge against what many still view as a questionable 2020 outcome in the Badger State.
On Thursday, many conservatives expressed frustration on social media. Talk-radio host Vicki McKenna criticized the decision, saying it showed that “recusal means literally nothing” to the court. She and others argued that the issue should be addressed politically, not through criminal charges.
Some described Troupis as “the last man standing” in the elector cases, pointing out that similar charges have been dropped or delayed in other states while Wisconsin’s Democrat machine grinds forward.
The broader context reeks of selective prosecution. Troupis and co-defendants Kenneth Chesebro and Mike Roman are accused of defrauding Republican electors by drafting and circulating the alternate slate — a move the defense has framed as a legitimate contingency plan amid widespread irregularities and lawsuits. Lower-court Judge John Hyland already rejected Troupis’ earlier bid to recuse him over allegations the judge outsourced part of a key order to a retired jurist with a personal grudge. Now the Supreme Court is doubling down.
Many conservatives see this as a slow-motion political hit job funded by Wisconsin taxpayers. They argue that while other issues, such as violent crime and investigation backlogs, aren’t being addressed, resources are being used to revisit the 2020 election in court. The liberal court’s refusal to recuse only confirms what Republicans have long argued: the system is rigged against anyone who dares question the 2020 results. If Karofsky and Dallet won’t step aside despite their own biased track record, why should any conservative trust the Wisconsin judiciary ever again?
Troupis, who served briefly as a Dane County judge himself, deserves better than this kangaroo process. So do the voters who still have questions surrounding the 2020 election. The real scandal isn’t alternate electors; it’s a weaponized legal system and endless lawfare that protects one side while punishing the other.
