The court was not scheduled to meet to discuss cases in May under a calendar it adopted last year.
On May 13, an assistant to Roggensack sent a note to the justices saying the court would meet privately to discuss three cases on May 18, when the justices were to gather to swear in the Marquette graduates.
Bradley wrote back noting that court rules don’t allow adding meetings without the agreement of all seven justices. She said she wouldn’t be at the May 18 ceremonies — she didn’t give a reason — and objected to the court meeting on cases that day.
On May 16, Abrahamson wrote to say she wouldn’t be available May 18, but gave no reason. Roggensack stressed that she thought it was important for the justices to be there.
“The admissions ceremony is so important to our new lawyers and to their families and friends,” Roggensack wrote. “It is unfortunate that three justices have chosen…not to participate.”
She went on to write that the other justices would meet to discuss the cases and needed Abrahamson, Bradley and Crooks to send emails before the meeting started to say how they would vote on the cases.
“If we do not have your votes to consider at conference, the opinions will show any justice who does not send in his or her vote for consideration at decision conference as having withdrawn from the case,” Roggensack wrote.
That prompted a strongly worded reply from Crooks on May 17.
“The closed conference that you have scheduled for May 18, 2015, is a violation of our rules, since it was not on the court’s calendar, and the unanimous consent required has not been received,” he wrote. “Despite that, you apparently have decided to proceed. I object.
“The email that you sent on May 16, 2015, sets forth a deadline that my votes on three cases must be received before the unauthorized conference, or I will be considered as having withdrawn from participation in those cases. You have unilaterally decided, without any authority, to exclude me from participation in those cases. Such an action by you is without precedent. Obviously I object. If you take such action, I intend to notify the attorneys for the parties in each case of your unauthorized action, and that I did not withdraw from participation.”
In response, Roggensack backed off slightly. She wrote that it would be helpful to have the votes of the absent justices before the meeting. But if they missed that deadline and submitted them by noon on May 19, “we will try to accommodate them,” she wrote.