WisconsinFailed bill would set campus speech rules and allow lawsuits
If enacted, UW System institutions and technical colleges would follow campus speech rules, teach students and employees about their rights, and face lawsuits for violations.
What it does
UW System institutions and technical colleges would follow rules protecting campus speech and teaching, while still being able to address threats, unlawful speech, and serious disruption.
Each institution would survey students and employees every two years about speech and campus culture, report results to lawmakers, and teach students and employees about rights each year.
People whose speech rights were violated, the attorney general, or a district attorney could sue the Board of Regents. A court could order a stop to the violation and award damages and legal costs.
Argument forStudents and employees could have more ways to share ideas because the rules limit speech restrictions and protect peaceful protests in public campus spaces.
Argument againstInstitutions could face damages and legal costs after a court finds a violation, with awards paid from money allocated for the institution’s administrative expenses.
More detail
UW System institutions and technical colleges would follow rules protecting campus speech and academic freedom. The rules cover public outdoor campus areas and indoor or virtual spaces designated as public forums. Classrooms in use for teaching are excluded from those forum rules. Institutions could still restrict unlawful speech, genuine threats, certain harassment, serious privacy violations, and expression that directly interferes with their work. They could set reasonable, neutral rules about when and where speech happens if the rules serve an important institutional interest and leave other ways to communicate.
Institutions would survey students and employees, report results, and provide instruction on rights and due process. Each institution would survey its students and employees about speech rights, academic freedom, perceived bias, and campus self-censorship. Surveys must use sound methods and protect respondents’ confidentiality. Surveys and reports would happen every two years. Instruction would be provided annually.
Eligible people and public officials could sue the UW System Board of Regents over an institution’s violation. The attorney general, a district attorney, or a person whose expressive rights were violated could bring a case in circuit court. If a court finds a violation, damages would start at $500, plus $50 for each day the violation continues after the board is served with the complaint. Total damages for cases arising from one dispute could not exceed $100,000. The board would pay awards from money allocated to the institution for administrative expenses. Daily damages would begin the day after the board is served with the complaint and continue while the violation remains ongoing.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed Senate
- Passed House
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- May 13Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82Latest
- May 12Placed on calendar 5-12-2026 pursuant to Joint Rule 82 (2)(a)
- Mar 20Report vetoed by the Governor Tony Evers on 3-20-2026Major
- Mar 18Presented to the Governor on 3-18-2026To Governor
- Feb 23Report correctly enrolledMinor
- Feb 13Received from Assembly concurred inMinor
- Feb 12Ordered immediately messaged
- Vote recorded CONCURRENCE. Result: pass.Lower
- Vote recorded SHALL THE DECISION OF THE CHAIR STAND. Result: pass.Lower
- Vote recorded SHALL THE DECISION OF THE CHAIR STAND. Result: pass.Lower
- Feb 12Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 53, Noes 45Passed House
- Feb 12Rules suspended
- Feb 12Ordered to a third readingMinor
- Feb 12Decision of the Chair upheld, Ayes 53, Noes 45
- Feb 12Decision of the Chair appealed
- Feb 12Point of order that Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) well taken
- Feb 12Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 offered by Representative NeubauerMinor
- Feb 12Decision of the Chair upheld, Ayes 53, Noes 45
- Feb 12Decision of the Chair appealed
- Feb 12Point of order that Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) well taken
- Feb 12Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 offered by Representative BareMinor
- Feb 12Read a second timeMinor
- Feb 12Rules suspended to withdraw from calendar and take upMajor
- Feb 10Placed on calendar 2-12-2026 by Committee on Rules
- Jan 16Read first time and referred to committee on RulesMinor
- 2025
- Nov 19Received from SenateMinor
- Nov 18Ordered immediately messaged
- Vote recorded PASSAGE. Result: pass.Upper
- Nov 18Read a third time and passed, Ayes 17, Noes 16Passed Senate
- Nov 18Rules suspended to give bill its third reading
- Nov 18Ordered to a third readingMinor
- Nov 18Read a second timeMinor
- Nov 14Placed on calendar 11-18-2025 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Oct 24Available for scheduling
- Vote recorded Report passage recommended by Committee on Universities and Technical Colleges, Ayes 3, Noes 2. Result: pass.Upper
- Oct 24Report passage recommended by Committee on Universities and Technical Colleges, Ayes 3, Noes 2Minor
- Oct 24Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Oct 24Executive action taken
- Oct 15Public hearing held
- Oct 15Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Oct 2Read first time and referred to Committee on Universities and Technical CollegesMinor
- Oct 2Introduced by Senators Cabral-Guevara, Tomczyk, Kapenga and Wanggaard; cosponsored by Representatives Nedweski, Murphy, Gustafson, Allen, Armstrong, Behnke, Brill, Dallman, Dittrich, Donovan, Duchow, Gundrum, Knodl, Kreibich, Krug, Maxey, Melotik, Moses, Mursau, O'Connor, Penterman, Piwowarczyk, Sortwell, Steffen, Summerfield, Swearingen, Tusler and WichgersIntroduced
EducationCivil Rights & Voting