As Musk pours millions into Wisconsin Supreme Court race, Tesla files case that could reach justices

Billionaire Elon Musk is pouring millions of dollars into Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race as his electric vehicle company wages a legal fight that could reach the state’s high court.

A political action committee created by Musk has spent more than $2.5 million on digital advertising, printed brochures and canvassing efforts in the race, according to a regulatory filing that included payments made between Feb. 19 and Feb. 26.

A conservative nonprofit that the Tesla CEO has contributed to in the past also spent $1.6 million on TV ads, the Associated Press reported.

Musk is backing Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate in the race and former state attorney general. The April 1 election pits Schimel against Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, the liberal candidate in the race.

Musk’s money has helped tip the funding scales in conservatives’ favor, but it comes as Tesla is suing the state over a decision that prevented the company from opening dealerships in Wisconsin.

Last year, the state denied Tesla’s request for dealer licenses, saying the company did not qualify for an exemption to a state law prohibiting manufacturers from owning dealerships. The company had hoped to convert its galleries in Madison and Milwaukee into dealerships, and had additional plans for dealerships in Glendale and the Fox Cities.

In January, Tesla filed a petition for a judicial review in Outagamie County Circuit Court seeking to overturn the decision. A hearing is scheduled for later this month on whether the case should remain in Outagamie County or transfer to either Dane or Milwaukee County.

Tesla case could reach the state Supreme Court

Tesla’s case could hypothetically make its way to the state Supreme Court. But it’s not clear if it’s the type of case the court typically takes up, said Bryna Godar, a staff attorney with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.

If Tesla doesn’t like the circuit court’s decision, it could appeal the case to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. After the appeals court, Godar says the state Supreme Court would choose whether to take the case.

“The types of cases that they decide to take up are kind of limited,” she said. “It’s not clear yet whether this Tesla case would raise the types of issues that the court is accustomed to hearing.”

Tesla public relations, as well as attorneys listed in its petition for judicial review, did not immediately respond to requests for comment about whether the company plans to fight its case all the way up to the state’s high court.

Wisconsin’s code of judicial conduct says a judge shall not be required to recuse solely based on an endorsement or on legal campaign contributions. Godar says that provision was added in 2010 and “insulates judges and justices from having to recuse” because of financing they get during the campaign, like the contributions from Musk’s PAC.

There’s a general ethics provision that tells judges to recuse if it appears they cannot be impartial, but it’s up to state Supreme Court justices to decide whether they will be able to rule impartially.

There have been high-profile cases in Wisconsin where this issue has come up in recent decades, with justices of both partisan leanings declining to recuse themselves, Godar said.

In 2023, liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz declined to recuse from a redistricting case after being criticized for receiving campaign contributions from the state Democratic Party. In 2007, conservative Justice Annette Ziegler, now the chief justice, declined to recuse from a case where Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce participated after spending $2.2 million on her behalf.

Legal experts weigh in on Musk donations, Tesla case

Stephen Gillers, an emeritus law professor at New York University Law School, said he sees Musk as no different from any other organization that anticipates making repeat appearances before state courts, or anticipates issues facing the court could affect them.

“They want to influence how the state court rules, and they want to do that by generously supporting candidates whose votes, once elected, are likely — in their prediction — to favor the positions they have,” he said. “These are not wild donations. They’re calculated.”

James Sample is a law professor at the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University in New York state. He said Wisconsin’s model of allowing justices to decide whether or not they can be impartial is a “fundamental flaw” in the system.

He said Musk’s campaign spending could reasonably be viewed as a conflict of interest for Schimel if Tesla’s case reaches the Supreme Court.

“If Elon Musk’s personal expenditures end up being one of the primary forces that supports the campaign of a judge, and then Elon Musk — in his corporate capacity — effectively appears before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, ask yourself the question: Might it be reasonable to question the impartiality of the judge whom he supported?” Sample asked.

“If you are on the other side of a case in which the justice received millions of dollars in campaign support from your opponent, would anyone truly believe that they were getting a fair hearing? If the answer to that question is no, as I think it most definitely is, that speaks to the flaw in the system,” he continued.

With Musk’s powerful position in the Trump White House, the tech billionaire’s spending in the state Supreme Court race could seek to expand his influence into the courts, Sample said.

“Whether an oligarch is conservative or liberal, it is a concern when the oligarchy takes over our politics and our courts,” he said.

Campaigns trade barbs over campaign backers

The Crawford campaign has been critical of Musk’s involvement in the race, framing it as an attempt by the world’s richest man to buy a seat on the court. Meanwhile, the Schimel campaign has been critical of Crawford’s backing from liberal megadonors like billionaire George Soros. 

If elected, Schimel said in a statement that he will search his conscience to ensure he can truthfully remain objective in every case that comes before the court. He also criticized Crawford for her support from big donors, and her decision to appear at a recent Democratic donor briefing.

“Unlike Susan Crawford, who was caught offering two congressional seats to out-of-state Democrat billionaires and has received the backing of George Soros, Reid Hoffman, and JB Pritzker, I will not prejudge cases,” Schimel said in a statement.

Crawford campaign spokesperson Derrick Honeyman said it’s no surprise Musk is spending millions of dollars to support Schimel’s campaign after his company sued Wisconsin.

“Wisconsinites deserve a Supreme Court Justice that puts fairness and impartiality first — not a career politician like Schimel who’s always for sale to the highest bidder,” Honeyman said in a statement.