Wisconsin Senate Bill SB1107

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/26
• Refer: 3/12/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to repeal 66.1010 of the statutes; Relating to: repealing the prohibition against local governments enacting or enforcing an eviction moratorium on a landlord. (FE)

Summary

SB1107 would repeal Wisconsin Statute 66.1010, which currently bars cities, villages, towns, and counties from adopting or enforcing ordinances that place a moratorium on a landlord’s ability to pursue an eviction action. In practical terms, the bill would remove the state-level prohibition on local eviction moratoriums, allowing local governments to decide whether to restrict evictions in their jurisdictions for residential or commercial rental property. The bill is narrowly focused on landlord-tenant policy and local government authority. It does not itself create an eviction moratorium or set new statewide eviction rules; instead, it eliminates a statutory limit that currently preempts local governments from acting in this area. Because the bill repeals an existing statute, its effect would be to shift power from the state to local governments on whether eviction moratoriums may be adopted or enforced.

Impact

If enacted, SB1107 would repeal section 66.1010 of the Wisconsin statutes and remove the express prohibition on local eviction moratorium ordinances. This would affect municipalities and counties by restoring their ability to consider moratoriums on eviction actions, and it would affect landlords and tenants by potentially allowing local restrictions on eviction proceedings for both residential and commercial properties. The bill would change state preemption law in the landlord-tenant context, but it would not itself mandate any local moratorium or alter the substantive grounds for eviction under general state law.

Sentiment

The available record shows little direct committee or floor discussion, but the bill’s introduction suggests support from a group of Democratic senators and representatives. Its failure to pass indicates that it did not secure enough legislative support to advance. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a local-control and tenant-protection measure by its supporters, while the lack of enactment suggests opposition or insufficient consensus among lawmakers.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the balance between local control and statewide uniformity in eviction policy. Supporters would favor repealing the preemption statute so local governments can respond to housing emergencies or local conditions, while opponents would likely argue that eviction rules should remain uniform statewide to protect landlords from a patchwork of local ordinances and to preserve predictability in the rental market. The bill also implicates broader debates over tenant protections, housing stability, and the extent to which local governments should be able to intervene in landlord-tenant enforcement.