Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Daniel Kelly

Daniel Kelly

Senior Litigation Counsel


Justice Daniel Kelly was appointed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2016 by Gov. Scott Walker to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice David T. Prosser, Jr.  He served in that capacity until August, 2020.

A native of Santa Barbara, California, Justice Kelly grew up in Arvada, Colorado. He came to Waukesha, Wisconsin to study at Carroll College (now Carroll University), where he earned a bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Spanish in 1986. He earned his law degree from Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach, Virginia in 1991.

Before joining the Supreme Court, he spent most of his career at one of the largest and oldest law firms in the State of Wisconsin, where he represented clients in courts across the country, including the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Early in his legal career, Justice Kelly was a law clerk and then staff attorney for the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, from 1992 to 1996. He worked as a law clerk for the late Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge Ralph Adam Fine from 1991 to 1992.

Justice Kelly has recently served as Senior Fellow in Constitutional Governance at the Institute for Reforming Government, where he authored “The Legislator’s Guide to Legislative Oversight,” a ground-breaking work that introduced a methodology for conducting oversight investigations and hearings that will lead to real-world results.

Justice Kelly is a member of the board of advisors and past president of the Milwaukee Lawyer’s Chapter of the Federalist Society. He is married and has five children. He lives in North Prairie, Wisconsin, where he enjoys intriguing books, the comfortably warm fellowship of good friends and interesting people, all things equestrian, and – above all – his family.

Admitted to practice in Wisconsin and select federal jurisdictions; licensed but not actively practicing in Virginia.

Murthy: Catch Me If You Can

By: Daniel Kelly August 9, 2024
Blogs
Sometimes, a case about standing really is just about standing. But not always. Sometimes a standing analysis reveals, sotto voce (or “esoterically” for all you Straussians1), a flaw in some aspect of the Court’s substantive jurisprudence. I think Murthy2 is one such case. It didn’t really break any new ground on who may bring a claim in federal court,…
Read