Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB955

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/29/26
• Refer: 1/29/26
• Report Pass: 2/10/26
• Refer: 2/10/26
• Engrossed: 2/12/26
• Refer: 2/16/26
• Enrolled: 3/26/26
• Vetoed: 4/8/26

Caption

An Act to repeal 227.11 (2) (a) (intro.); to renumber 227.11 (2) (a) 1. to 3.; to amend 18.03 (2) (b) and 227.11 (2) (d); to create 227.11 (1m) of the statutes; Relating to: the rule-making authority of agencies. (FE)

Summary

AB955 would significantly narrow the circumstances under which Wisconsin state agencies may create and enforce rules. The bill requires explicit and specific statutory authority before an agency may promulgate rules interpreting statutes, implement standards or thresholds, or rely on general statements of legislative intent or broad grants of authority as a basis for rulemaking. It also limits agencies’ ability to issue rules tied to federal compliance plans, settlement agreements, consent decrees, or court orders unless the agency already has the needed statutory authority. The bill also changes the rulemaking process itself by tightening scope-statement review and approval. Before a proposed rule can move forward, the Department of Administration must determine whether the agency has explicit and specific authority for the proposed rule, the governor must approve the scope statement in writing, and the agency’s policymaking body must also approve it after the public-comment process. In addition, state employees are barred from drafting proposed rules beyond work needed to prepare the scope statement until those approvals are obtained, with a limited exception for petitions and proposed rules submitted under a separate statutory process.

Impact

AB955 would amend Wisconsin’s administrative procedure statutes, especially ch. 227, to impose a more restrictive, text-based standard for agency rulemaking authority. It repeals and renumbers portions of s. 227.11, adds a new prohibition on interpretive rules without explicit statutory authorization, and revises related provisions governing agency implementation, pre-effective-date rulemaking, and scope-statement review. The bill would affect all state agencies and commissions by reducing reliance on implied authority, policy statements, and general powers clauses, and by making it harder to use litigation settlements or federal compliance plans as a basis for new administrative rules.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill was framed as a major regulatory-reform measure and ultimately did not become law, failing to pass notwithstanding the governor’s objections. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, there is no direct evidence of debate language or member-by-member support. The structure and content of the bill indicate a strong preference among its supporters for tighter legislative control over agency rulemaking, while the failure to override the governor’s objections suggests the proposal was politically contested at the executive level.

Contention

The central point of contention is agency discretion versus legislative control. Supporters of the bill appear to favor requiring agencies to point to explicit statutory text before regulating, which would limit interpretive rulemaking and reduce the use of broad or implied authority. Potential opponents would likely argue that the bill unduly constrains agencies’ ability to administer statutes, respond to federal requirements, and resolve legal obligations through settlements or consent decrees. The additional approval layers for scope statements and the restriction on drafting before approval are also likely to be controversial because they slow the rulemaking process and increase gubernatorial and administrative oversight.