Wisconsin Senate Bill SB194

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/14/25
• Refer: 4/14/25
• Report Pass: 5/8/25
• Engrossed: 5/15/25
• Refer: 5/27/25
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to renumber 19.37 (2) (a); to create 19.37 (2) (a) 2. of the statutes; Relating to: obtaining attorney fees and costs under the state’s public records law when an authority voluntarily or unilaterally releases a contested record after an action has been filed in court.

Summary

SB194 would change Wisconsin’s public records law to make it easier for a requester to recover attorney fees and costs when a government authority releases a contested record only after a court action has been filed. The bill renumbers the existing fee-shifting provision and creates a new standard stating that a requester has “prevailed in whole or in substantial part” not only when there is a judicial order, enforceable written agreement, or consent decree, but also when the authority voluntarily or unilaterally releases the record and the court finds the lawsuit was a substantial factor in prompting that release. The bill is designed to supersede the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 2022 Friends of Frame Park decision, which limited fee recovery when records were released without a court order. The new standard is modeled on the federal Freedom of Information Act approach, meaning it would align Wisconsin practice more closely with federal public records litigation rules and expand the circumstances under which requesters can obtain fees, damages, and costs in open-records cases.

Impact

SB194 would amend section 19.37(2)(a) of the Wisconsin Statutes, which governs attorney fees, damages, and costs in public records mandamus actions. If enacted, it would broaden the definition of when a requester is considered to have prevailed, increasing the likelihood that government agencies and officers—state or local authorities—could be ordered to pay fees and costs even when they release records after suit is filed but before a court order is entered. The bill would therefore affect public records requesters, municipalities, state agencies, and other custodians of records by shifting litigation incentives and potentially increasing exposure to fee awards in open-records disputes.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill was supported by a bipartisan group of senators and representatives at introduction, indicating at least some cross-party interest in strengthening public records enforcement. The bill’s framing as a correction to a recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision and its reliance on a federal FOIA-style standard suggest proponents viewed it as a technical but important access-to-records fix. However, the bill ultimately failed to advance, with its last recorded action being failure to concur pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating that support was not sufficient to complete enactment.

Contention

The main point of contention is whether requesters should be able to recover attorney fees when an authority releases records voluntarily after a lawsuit is filed but before a court order is issued. Supporters would likely argue that without fee recovery, agencies can delay disclosure and avoid consequences by releasing records only after being sued, while opponents may view the bill as expanding fee liability for governments and encouraging litigation over records that are eventually produced without judicial intervention. The bill also directly conflicts with the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Friends of Frame Park interpretation, so the extent to which the legislature should override that decision is another likely source of disagreement.