A Wisconsin judge is facing explosive allegations that he let prosecutors effectively write his ruling against Trump allies, raising fresh fears about a two-tiered justice system conservatives know all too well.
Story Snapshot
- Trump‑aligned defendants say a Dane County judge didn’t truly write his own ruling in Wisconsin’s fake electors case.
- Unsealed documents and motion filings point to striking overlaps between the judge’s order and prosecutors’ briefs.
- The judge refused to recuse himself, insisting he alone authored the decision and rejecting any claim of bias.
- The fight highlights deeper concerns about blue‑state courts being weaponized against election‑integrity conservatives.
Allegations That A Wisconsin Judge Didn’t Author His Own Ruling
Defense attorneys for former Trump allies Jim Troupis, Kenneth Chesebro, and Mike Roman are now arguing that Dane County Circuit Judge John Hyland’s August 2025 ruling reads less like an impartial court order and more like a cut‑and‑paste job from the prosecution. Their December motion claims the language, structure, and legal reasoning in the ruling track the state’s briefs so closely that it raises due process alarms, suggesting the judge may have relied on others instead of exercising independent judicial judgment.
The defendants’ filing asks for more than a do‑over; it seeks an evidentiary hearing before a judge from another county and a postponement of the preliminary hearing. Their argument is straightforward: in a criminal case carrying eleven felony counts of forgery and attempted fraud, the Constitution demands a neutral decision‑maker who actually writes his own orders. If prosecutors or staff effectively drafted the ruling, conservatives see that as a direct blow to the promise of equal justice under law.
How The Fake Elector Prosecution Became A Test Of Judicial Neutrality
The Wisconsin case stems from December 14, 2020, when ten Republican electors met and signed documents asserting Donald Trump, not Joe Biden, won the state’s ten electoral votes. Those certificates were later sent to Congress and the National Archives as part of a broader legal and political challenge to the 2020 results. Prosecutors waited until 2024 to charge Troupis, Chesebro, and Roman, hitting them with eleven felony counts each, even after the federal special counsel dropped his own election‑interference case against Trump.
Judge Hyland’s August 2025 ruling denying the motion to dismiss signaled that Wisconsin would press forward where federal prosecutors and some states stepped back. The defendants had argued their actions were lawful political advocacy and protected speech, pointing to mixed outcomes in other states, including a Michigan decision throwing out fake‑elector charges under that state’s forgery laws. When Hyland rejected those arguments and allowed the case to proceed, conservatives already wary of Dane County’s deep‑blue politics saw another example of local courts being used as a partisan tool against Trump’s legal team.
Recusal Fight And What It Signals To Conservatives Nationwide
On December 8, 2025, defense attorneys moved to postpone the December 15 preliminary hearing and formally accused Hyland of misconduct tied to authorship of his ruling. They requested that a different judge handle an evidentiary hearing on whether he improperly relied on prosecutors’ work product. Hyland responded within days, refusing to step aside and stating flatly that he wrote the decision himself and that the motion showed no evidence of bias by any Dane County judge. For many on the right, that answer did little to calm concerns.
The recusal motion now hangs over a preliminary hearing that will decide whether the state has enough evidence to push three Trump‑aligned defendants toward trial and potentially years in prison. Short term, the dispute could spawn appeals and delay; long term, it underscores why conservatives demand transparent, accountable courts. When a judge’s order mirrors the government’s brief, it looks less like a check on power and more like an extension of it, precisely the kind of state overreach the Founders tried to restrain.
Why This Case Matters In The Post‑Biden, Trump‑Led Era
With President Trump back in the White House and dismantling Biden‑era excesses—from open‑border policies to weaponized federal bureaucracies—cases like this Wisconsin prosecution show how deeply the prior administration’s mindset lingers in blue state institutions. State‑level actors are still pursuing narrow, hard‑to‑prove forgery theories tied to 2020 while federal prosecutors have walked away from broader election‑interference claims. That disconnect feeds a perception that some local systems remain locked into punishing Trump’s allies long after voters chose a different national direction.
Documents: Wisconsin Judge In Trump Electors Case Didn’t Write His Own Rulinghttps://t.co/btqLEQh05O
— The Federalist (@FDRLST) December 10, 2025
For conservative readers who care about the rule of law, the stakes go beyond three defendants. If allegations about ghostwritten rulings are brushed aside, it normalizes a judiciary that quietly aligns with partisan prosecutors on politically charged cases. That threatens fair trials, chills robust election‑integrity advocacy, and erodes trust in courts already battered by years of double standards on border security, free speech, and religious liberty. Whatever one thinks of the 2020 litigation, every American should want a judge’s ruling to be his own work—and his alone.
Sources:
Former Trump aides allege misconduct by judge in Wisconsin fake elector case
Wisconsin judge refuses former Trump attorney’s request to step aside
Fake elector plot started in Wisconsin
