An Act to create 895.059 of the statutes; Relating to: establishing a civil cause of action for civil rights violations.
SB355 would create a new statutory civil cause of action for civil rights violations by adding s. 895.059 to the Wisconsin statutes. Under the bill, a person who is deprived of due process or equal protection rights, or other rights secured by the U.S. or Wisconsin constitutions or laws, by someone acting under color of law, or whose rights are interfered with through threats, intimidation, or coercion by someone acting under color of law, could sue for damages and injunctive or other appropriate relief. The bill expressly allows suits against the state and its political subdivisions, departments, agencies, or instrumentalities.
The bill also requires courts to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff, overrides certain existing governmental claims procedures and notice provisions, and sets a six-year statute of limitations for bringing an action. It applies only to causes of action accruing on or after the effective date. In practical terms, the bill would expand legal remedies available to individuals alleging civil rights violations by government actors and would expose public entities to additional litigation risk.
SB355 would add a new standalone civil rights remedy to Wisconsin law by creating s. 895.059 and carving these claims out from the usual limitations in ss. 893.80 and 893.82. That means plaintiffs could sue state and local government entities, as well as other persons acting under color of law, for constitutional or statutory rights violations and seek damages, injunctions, and attorney fees. The bill would therefore affect state agencies, municipalities, and other public bodies by increasing potential liability and litigation exposure, while giving affected individuals a broader path to relief than existing state-law procedures.
The available context shows the bill was introduced with substantial legislative support, including multiple Senate sponsors and a large group of Assembly cosponsors, suggesting strong interest in expanding civil rights enforcement. However, there is no committee transcript or recorded vote information provided, and the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. Based on the sponsorship pattern alone, the bill appears to have had a favorable reception among its supporters, but the final outcome indicates it did not secure enough support to become law.
The main points of contention likely centered on the bill’s expansion of liability for government actors and public entities. By allowing suits against the state and local governments, eliminating the application of certain governmental claims statutes, and mandating attorney fees for prevailing plaintiffs, the bill would have increased exposure to lawsuits and costs for public bodies. Supporters would likely view the measure as strengthening accountability and remedies for civil rights violations, while opponents would likely be concerned about increased litigation, fiscal impacts, and the removal of procedural protections normally available to government defendants.