The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the state's 1849 abortion ban has been impliedly repealed by comprehensive legislation enacted over the past 50 years, allowing abortion services to continue in the state. The 4-3 decision in *Kaul v. Urmanski* (Wis. 2025) represents a major victory for reproductive rights advocates following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 *Dobbs* decision that overturned *Roe v. Wade*.
Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet delivered the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Karofsky, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, and Justice Protasiewicz. The court concluded that Wisconsin Statute Section 940.04(1), which dates to 1849 and criminalizes the "intentional destruction of an unborn child," does not ban abortion because it has been superseded by later legislative action.
The case arose after Attorney General Josh Kaul and other plaintiffs filed suit against Joel Urmanski, the district attorney for Sheboygan County, and other defendants following the *Dobbs* decision. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the 1849 statute does not prohibit abortion services in Wisconsin.
In the majority opinion, Justice Dallet wrote that "comprehensive legislation enacted over the last 50 years regulating in detail the 'who, what, where, when, and how' of abortion so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion." The court applied the doctrine of implied repeal, finding that when a legislature enacts comprehensive new legislation on a subject previously covered by an older statute, the newer legislation can impliedly repeal the earlier law.
The Wisconsin Legislature has enacted detailed regulations governing abortion procedures, provider requirements, waiting periods, and other aspects of reproductive healthcare since the 1970s. The court determined this extensive regulatory framework demonstrates legislative intent to replace the blanket prohibition from 1849 with a more nuanced approach that permits abortion under regulated conditions.
The decision was sharply divided, with three dissenting opinions filed by conservative justices. Justice Ziegler filed a dissenting opinion, as did Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley. Justice Hagedorn also dissented, with Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley joining his opinion. The multiple dissents indicate the deep ideological split on the seven-member court regarding abortion rights and statutory interpretation.
The case originated in Dane County Circuit Court, where Judge Diane Schlipper issued a judgment and order that was appealed to the state supreme court. The circuit court's decision favored the plaintiffs' position that the 1849 law did not ban modern abortion services.
Wisconsin became one of many states grappling with the legal status of abortion following *Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization*, which eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion and returned the issue to individual states. The *Dobbs* decision created uncertainty about whether pre-*Roe* abortion bans would automatically take effect, leading to litigation in multiple states with similar 19th-century statutes.
The Wisconsin decision relies heavily on principles of statutory interpretation and legislative intent rather than constitutional rights. By finding implied repeal, the court avoided having to address whether the Wisconsin Constitution provides independent protection for abortion rights, a question that could arise in future litigation.
The ruling has immediate practical implications for healthcare providers and patients in Wisconsin. Abortion services, which faced uncertainty following *Dobbs*, can now continue operating under the regulatory framework established by the legislature in recent decades. The decision provides legal clarity for medical professionals who had been concerned about potential criminal liability under the 1849 statute.
For reproductive rights advocates, the decision represents a significant victory in a state that has become a focal point in the national abortion debate. Wisconsin's status as a purple state with divided government has made it a key battleground for abortion access in the Midwest region.
The decision may influence similar cases in other states with pre-*Roe* abortion bans. Courts in states like Arizona, Michigan, and others have grappled with whether comprehensive modern abortion regulations impliedly repeal older prohibition statutes.
While the immediate legal question has been resolved, the political battle over abortion in Wisconsin is likely to continue. The legislature could potentially attempt to clarify or modify the statutory framework, though any such efforts would face the reality of divided government in the state.
The case demonstrates how state courts have become the primary venues for determining abortion rights following the federal retreat from constitutional protection in *Dobbs*. Wisconsin joins states like Kansas and Michigan in providing some level of legal protection for abortion access through state court decisions.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority, which includes the four justices who joined the majority opinion, was solidified following the 2023 election of Justice Protasiewicz. The court's composition has shifted significantly from when conservative justices held the majority, leading to different outcomes on contentious social issues.
Legal observers will watch whether the decision faces further appeals or legislative responses as Wisconsin continues to navigate the post-*Dobbs* legal landscape for reproductive rights.