WisconsinState agencies would need clear legal authority to make rules
The enrolled proposal would limit agency rules and requirements to powers clearly granted by state law and require approvals before agencies draft proposed rules.
What it does
State agencies could enforce a requirement, including a license condition, only when a law or properly adopted rule clearly allows it. They could make rules interpreting a law only with specific authority in state law.
Before an agency could move ahead with a proposed rule, the Department of Administration would review its authority and the governor would have to approve the plan. The responsible policy leader or body would also have to approve it after public review.
A federal compliance plan or legal agreement could not give an agency power to make a rule. The agency would need specific authority in state law when it submitted the plan or signed the agreement.
An agency could prepare a rule after the law authorizing it is published, even if the law has not taken effect yet. The rule could not take effect before that law does.
Argument forPeople and businesses could see clearer limits on agency rules because agencies would need specific authority and review before moving ahead.
Argument againstAgencies might have less room to address problems through rules when a law does not clearly give them that authority.
More detail
Agencies could enforce a requirement only when a law or properly adopted rule clearly allows it. This covers state agencies and standards, requirements, or thresholds, including terms of an agency license. The enforcement limit has exceptions listed in other statutes. The Public Service Commission's power to interpret laws would not exceed the rulemaking authority allowed by section 227.11 (2) (a).
The Department of Administration would review an agency's authority, and the governor would decide whether to approve its proposed rule plan. This covers state agencies preparing proposed rules. The policy leader or body responsible for the subject would also have to approve the plan. That approval could come only after publication and, if a hearing and comment period were held, review of the public comments. State employees and officials could not work on drafting the proposed rule until both approvals were given, except for work needed to prepare the scope statement or a specified petition and proposed rule. That leader or body could approve only after the plan was published for at least 10 days.
Agencies could not use a federal compliance plan or legal agreement as authority to make a rule. This covers rules that state agencies might agree to make through federal compliance plans or legal agreements. An agency could agree to make a rule as part of a federal compliance plan, settlement, consent decree, or stipulated court order only if it had specific authority in state law at the time it submitted or signed the plan or agreement.
An agency could make a rule for a law before that law takes effect, but the rule could not take effect early. This covers rules that implement or interpret a law the agency will enforce or administer. The rule could be made after publication of the authorizing law but could take effect no earlier than that law's effective date.
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 Assembly
- Passed Senate
- 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)
- Apr 8Report vetoed by the Governor Tony Evers on 4-8-2026Major
- Apr 6Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Apr 2Presented to the Governor on 4-2-2026To Governor
- Mar 26Report correctly enrolled on 3-26-2026Minor
- Mar 18Received from Senate concurred inMinor
- Mar 17Ordered immediately messaged
- Mar 17Read a third time and concurred inPassed Senate
- Mar 17Rules suspended to give bill its third reading
- Mar 17Ordered to a third readingMinor
- Mar 17Read a second timeMinor
- Mar 16Placed on calendar 3-17-2026 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Vote recorded Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 3, Noes 2. Result: pass.Upper
- Mar 16Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 3, Noes 2
- Feb 23Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Feb 23Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Feb 18Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Feb 17Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Feb 17Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Feb 16Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Feb 16Available for scheduling
- Feb 16Read first time and referred to committee on Senate OrganizationMinor
- Feb 13Received from AssemblyMinor
- Feb 12Ordered immediately messaged
- Feb 12Read a third time and passedPassed Assembly
- Feb 12Rules suspended
- Feb 12Ordered to a third readingMinor
- Feb 12Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 adoptedMajor
- Feb 12Read a second timeMinor
- Feb 11Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Feb 10Placed on calendar 2-12-2026 by Committee on Rules
- Vote recorded Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Government Operations, Accountability, and Transparency, Ayes 6, Noes 3. Result: pass.Lower
- Vote recorded Report Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 adoption recommended by Committee on Government Operations, Accountability, and Transparency, Ayes 6, Noes 3. Result: pass.Lower
- Feb 10Referred to committee on RulesMinor
- Feb 10Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Government Operations, Accountability, and Transparency, Ayes 6, Noes 3Minor
- Feb 10Report Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 adoption recommended by Committee on Government Operations, Accountability, and Transparency, Ayes 6, Noes 3Minor
- Feb 10Executive action taken
- Feb 10Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Feb 10Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Feb 10Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Feb 9Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Feb 9Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 offered by Representative KnodlMinor
- Feb 6Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Feb 6Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Feb 5Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Feb 4Public hearing held
- Feb 4Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Feb 3Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Feb 2Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Jan 30Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Jan 30Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Jan 30Representative Armstrong added as a coauthor
- Jan 29Read first time and referred to Committee on Government Operations, Accountability, and TransparencyMinor
- Jan 29Introduced by Representatives B. Jacobson, Gustafson, Hurd, Tucker, Tusler, Sortwell, Allen, Behnke, Callahan, Dittrich, Goeben, Green, Gundrum, Kaufert, Knodl, Kreibich, Maxey, Moses, Murphy, Neylon, O'Connor, Penterman, Petersen, Piwowarczyk, Rodriguez, VanderMeer, Wichgers, Wittke, Melotik and Spiros; cosponsored by Senators Jacque, Hutton, Quinn, Kapenga, Bradley, Nass and Cabral-GuevaraIntroduced
Government & Ethics