Wisconsin Senate Bill SB276

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/21/25
• Refer: 5/21/25
• Report Pass: 11/7/25
• Refer: 1/30/26
• Report Pass: 2/3/26
• Engrossed: 2/11/26
• Enrolled: 2/20/26
• Vetoed: 3/20/26

Caption

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

SB 276 would change Wisconsin law governing court challenges to administrative rules and guidance documents. Under current law, a court may invalidate a rule if it exceeds agency authority, violates the constitution, or was adopted without following required procedures. This bill keeps that standard but adds a fee-shifting provision: if a court declares a rule invalid, the court must award the party that successfully challenged the rule reasonable attorney fees and costs, subject to limits in certain proceedings. The bill also amends state appropriation statutes to ensure that any attorney-fee or cost awards ordered under this section are paid from the applicable state legal-expense appropriations, including general purpose revenues, program revenues, and segregated revenues. In practical terms, it creates a specific funding mechanism for paying these awards when state agencies lose rule-validity challenges. The bill applies prospectively to declaratory judgment actions commenced on the effective date. The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support but also significant opposition. It passed the Senate 18-15 and the Assembly 53-45, indicating a relatively close partisan split. The bill ultimately failed to become law after a gubernatorial veto override effort did not succeed, which suggests the measure was controversial enough to draw objections from the governor and divided lawmakers. The main point of contention is the fee-shifting requirement. Supporters likely viewed it as a way to deter unlawful or overreaching administrative rules and to help challengers recover the costs of enforcing statutory limits on agencies. Opponents likely objected to the fiscal impact on state agencies and the broader policy effect of encouraging more litigation against administrative rules. Because the bill covers both rules and guidance documents, it also implicates agency rulemaking practices more broadly than a narrow procedural fix would.

Impact

SB 276 would amend Wisconsin statutes 20.865 and 227.40 to require courts to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a successful challenger when an administrative rule or guidance document is declared invalid. It also directs that those awards be paid from the relevant state appropriations for legal expenses, including general, program, and segregated revenue accounts. The bill would therefore increase the financial exposure of state agencies in rule-validity litigation and strengthen the remedies available to parties challenging agency action.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been supported by a coalition large enough to pass both chambers, but only narrowly, indicating substantial division. The Senate and Assembly votes were close, and the measure ultimately did not become law after a failed override effort following gubernatorial objections. That pattern suggests the bill was viewed favorably by supporters of tighter administrative accountability, while opponents remained concerned about cost, litigation incentives, and the effect on agency rulemaking.

Contention

The central controversy is whether successful challengers to administrative rules should automatically receive attorney fees and costs. Supporters likely argued that agencies should bear the cost when they exceed their authority or fail to follow required procedures, while opponents likely saw the provision as a litigation incentive that could burden state budgets and chill administrative action. A secondary point of concern is the bill’s funding mechanism, which would require payment from state appropriations, making the fiscal impact on agencies and taxpayers a key issue.