An Act to amend 20.865 (1) (a), 20.865 (1) (g), 20.865 (1) (q) and 227.40 (4) (a) of the statutes; Relating to: challenges to the validity of administrative rules and making an appropriation. (FE)
Summary
AB275 would change Wisconsin law governing court challenges to administrative rules and guidance documents. Under the bill, when a court finds that a rule or guidance document is invalid because it is unconstitutional, exceeds an agency’s statutory authority, or was adopted without following required rulemaking procedures, the court must award the challenger reasonable attorney fees and costs. The bill also directs that any such costs paid by an agency come from existing appropriations in the state’s legal-expense accounts.
The bill amends several appropriation statutes in section 20.865 to ensure there is authority to pay judgments, legal expenses, and court-awarded costs from general, program revenue, and segregated revenue accounts. It also amends section 227.40 to make the fee award mandatory in rule-invalidity cases, while limiting recoverable fees in certain proceedings to those tied to the challenge to the rule or guidance document itself. The bill applies prospectively to actions for declaratory judgment commenced on the effective date of the new law.
Impact
AB275 would increase the financial exposure of state agencies when their administrative rules or guidance documents are successfully challenged in court, by making attorney fee awards mandatory rather than discretionary in those cases. It would also affect the state’s budgeting and appropriation structure by explicitly tying payment of those awards to the existing legal-expense appropriations in section 20.865. The practical effect would be to strengthen incentives for private parties to bring rule challenges and to encourage agencies to ensure their rules stay within statutory and procedural limits.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote breakdown, so there is no detailed public debate captured here. Based on the bill’s text and its introduction by multiple legislators, the measure appears to have been advanced as a pro-accountability and pro-challenger reform aimed at deterring unlawful or overreaching agency rulemaking. However, the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not secure final legislative approval.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the mandatory attorney-fee provision. Supporters would view it as a way to hold agencies accountable and reduce the cost barrier for people or organizations challenging invalid rules. Opponents would likely argue that mandatory fee shifting could encourage more litigation, increase costs to the state, and make agencies more cautious or less flexible in rulemaking. A secondary issue is the appropriation language, which ensures agencies pay these awards from public funds, potentially drawing concern from fiscal conservatives and agency administrators.
Crossfiled
An Act to amend 20.865 (1) (a), 20.865 (1) (g), 20.865 (1) (q) and 227.40 (4) (a) of the statutes; Relating to: challenges to the validity of administrative rules and making an appropriation. (FE)
The structure of the state gaming commission and the administration and regulation of games of chance; to provide an appropriation; and to provide for application.
A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact sections 53-06.1-01.1 and 53-06.1-15.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the structure of the state gaming commission and the administration and regulation of games of chance; to provide an appropriation; and to provide for application.
A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact subsection 1 of section 28-32-18 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the authority of the administrative rules committee to void an administrative rule.
A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 28-32-18 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the amendment of an administrative rule by agreement of the agency and administrative rules committee.