Wisconsin Senate Bill SB277

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/21/25
• Refer: 5/21/25
• Report Pass: 11/7/25
• Engrossed: 2/11/26
• Enrolled: 2/24/26
• Vetoed: 3/20/26

Caption

An Act to renumber 227.15 (3); to amend 227.114 (2) (intro.), 227.14 (6) (c) 1. (intro.), 227.15 (7) and 990.01 (30m); to create 35.93 (2) (b) 3. gn., 35.93 (2) (b) 3. gp., 35.93 (2) (b) 3. gq., 35.93 (2) (c) 2m., 35.93 (3) (g), 227.10 (3) (f), 227.135 (1) (g), 227.137 (3) (h), 227.14 (6) (c) 1m., 227.15 (3) (b) and 227.225 of the statutes; Relating to: the expiration of administrative rules. (FE)

Summary

SB277 creates a new framework for the expiration and periodic readoption of Wisconsin administrative rules. Under the bill, each chapter of the Wisconsin Administrative Code would expire seven years after it takes effect, unless the chapter is readopted. For existing chapters already in effect when the bill takes effect, the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) must establish a staggered expiration schedule, with expirations beginning in 2028 and running through 2035. Emergency rules are excluded from this expiration system. The bill sets up a notice-and-review process for agencies to keep rules in force. In the year before a chapter expires, an agency may file a readoption notice with the legislature and JCRAR. If no member of JCRAR or the relevant standing committee objects within a 40-day review period, the chapter is automatically considered readopted. If there is an objection, the chapter expires unless the agency goes through the standard rulemaking process to readopt it. JCRAR may also extend a chapter’s expiration date by up to one year to allow time for readoption. SB277 also makes several related procedural changes to Wisconsin’s rulemaking statutes. It requires agencies to avoid outdated or derogatory language in rules, adds readoption-specific disclosure requirements in rule notices and economic impact analyses, and directs the Legislative Reference Bureau to remove expired chapters from the Administrative Code. The bill also updates definitions and rule procedures to account for the new readoption process. The bill’s impact is significant for state administrative law because it would replace indefinite rule duration with a mandatory sunset-and-review cycle for every administrative code chapter. That would affect state agencies, the legislature, regulated businesses, and the public by forcing periodic rejustification of rules and creating a mechanism for legislative review before rules continue in effect. Overall sentiment appears mixed to favorable among supporters of tighter oversight of administrative rules, as reflected in the bill’s passage in both chambers, but the narrow margins suggest substantial concern or opposition. The bill ultimately failed to become law after the governor’s objections, indicating executive resistance. The main point of contention is the balance between legislative oversight and administrative efficiency: supporters likely view the bill as improving accountability and keeping rules current, while opponents may see it as burdensome, disruptive, and likely to create uncertainty by causing rules to expire unless actively renewed.

Impact

SB277 would substantially amend Wisconsin’s administrative rulemaking framework by adding a sunset provision for every chapter of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, requiring periodic readoption or expiration. It creates new duties for agencies, JCRAR, standing committees, and the Legislative Reference Bureau, and it amends several statutes governing rule drafting, publication, review, and withdrawal. The bill would directly affect state agencies that promulgate rules, regulated entities subject to those rules, and legislative oversight bodies responsible for reviewing them.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have had enough support to pass both the Senate and Assembly, but only by relatively narrow margins, suggesting a divided response. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the final history shows the bill advanced through the legislature and then failed after the governor’s objections. That pattern suggests the proposal was politically significant and controversial, with supporters favoring stronger rule review and opponents concerned about the practical effects of mandatory rule expiration.

Contention

The central controversy is whether administrative rules should automatically expire unless actively readopted. Supporters of the bill likely favor increased legislative control, periodic review, and the ability to eliminate outdated rules, while critics likely worry that the expiration system would create administrative burden, instability, and gaps in regulatory coverage if readoptions are delayed or blocked. Additional points of contention include the role of JCRAR in setting expiration schedules and granting extensions, and whether the new process would make rulemaking more accountable or simply more cumbersome.