Wisconsin 2025 Regular Session Status: Introduced 7 R cosponsors

SB 940 — Relating to: the rule-making authority of agencies. (FE)

Last action — Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. 1
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced February 06, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.

Prognosis

Advancing 38% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Low

How often bills like it became law.

  • Introduced

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 37 sponsors

    1 primary, 36 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (7 R).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 2 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

An Act to repeal 227.11 (2) (a) (intro.); to renumber 227.11 (2) (a) 1. to 3.; to amend 18.03 (2) (b) and 227.11 (2) (d); to create 227.11 (1m) of the statutes;

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

39 added · 105 removed

Plain-language change summary

The latest version of SB 940 brings changes to the way agencies can exercise their rule-making authority. It removes language that allowed agencies to interpret statutes without explicit authority and emphasizes that any standards or requirements must be clearly defined by law or established through a formal rule-making process. This change aims to enhance accountability and clarity in regulatory practices, ensuring that agencies cannot impose regulations without clear legal backing. This matters because it increases protections for individuals and businesses by requiring more transparent regulations.

→
Previous
Latest
- 2026 LEGISLATURE LRBs0353/1 MED:cjs&ajk SENATE SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT 1, TO SENATE BILL 940 February 10, 2026 - Offered by Senator JACQUE .
- 2026 LEGISLATURE LRB-6141/1 MED:cjs SENATE BILL 940 February 6, 2026 - Introduced by SenatoACQUE , UINN , UTTON , KAPENGA, NASS, BRADLEY and C ABRAL-GUEVARA , cosponsored by Representatives B.
JACOBSON , USTAFSON , URD , UCKER, TUSLER, ORTWELL , LLEN, BEHNKE, CALLAHAN , D ITTRIC, G OEBEN, G REEN, G UNDRUM , K AUFERT, K NODL, KREIBICH, M AXEY, M OSES, M URPHY, N EYLON, O'CONNOR , PENTERMAN , PETERSEN, PIWOWARCZYK , RODRIGUEZ, VANDER M EER, WICHGERS, W ITTK, SPIROS and ARMSTRONG .
Referred to Committee on Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs.
to renumber and amend 227.11 (2) (a) 1.
to renumber 227.11 (2) (a) 1.
to amend 18.03 (2) (b), 227.10 (2m), 227.11 (2) (d), 227.11 (3) and 227.135 (2);
to amend 18.03 (2) (b) and 227.11 (2) (d);
the rule- making and regulatory authority of agencies.
the rule-making authority of agencies.
The administrative procedure law also has several references to an agency needing explicit rule-making authority in order to promulgate rules.
For further information see the state fiscal estimate, which will be printed as an appendix to this bill.
The bill changes these provisions so that they require explicit and specific authority.
Current law also provides that no agency may implement or enforce any standard, requirement, or threshold, including as a term or condition of any license issued by the agency, unless that standard, requirement, or threshold is explicitly - 2026 Legislature - 2 - LRBs0353/1 MED:cjs&ajk SECTION 1 required or explicitly permitted by statute or by a rule that has been promulgated in accordance with the rule-making process.
The bill modifies this provision to require that the standard, requirement, or threshold be explicitly and specifically required or permitted by a statute or rule.
18.03 (2) (b) The commission may interpret the statutes enforced or administered by it as it considers to be necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statutes.
18.03 (2) (b) The commission may interpret the statutes enforced or - 2026 Legislature - 2 - LRB-6141/1 MED:cjs SENATE BILL 940 SECTION 1 administered by it as it considers to be necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statutes.
SECTION 2.
S ECTION 2.
227.10 (2m) of the statutes is amended to read:
227.10 (2m) No agency may implement or enforce any standard, requirement, or threshold, including as a term or condition of any license issued by the agency, unless that standard, requirement, or threshold is explicitly and specifically required or explicitly and specifically permitted by statute or by a rule that has been promulgated in accordance with this subchapter, except as provided in s.
186.118 (2) (c) and (3) (b) 3.
The governor, by executive order, may prescribe guidelines to ensure that rules are promulgated in compliance with this subchapter.
SECTION 3.
SECTION 4.
S ECTION 3.
- 2026 Legislature - 3 - LRBs0353/1 MED:cjs&ajk SECTION 5 S ECTION 5.
S ECTION 4.
of the statutes are renumbered 227.11 (4) to (6), and 227.11 (4) and (5), as renumbered, are amended to read:
of the statutes are renumbered 227.11 (4) to (6).
227.11 (4) A statutory or nonstatutory provision containing a statement or declaration of legislative intent, purpose, findings, or policy does not confer rule- making authority on the agency or augment the agency’s rule-making authority beyond the rule-making authority that is explicitly and specifically conferred on the agency by the legislature.
S ECTION 5.
(5) A statutory provision describing the agency’s general powers or duties does not confer rule-making authority on the agency or augment the agency’s rule- making authority beyond the rule-making authority that is explicitly and specifically conferred on the agency by the legislature.
S ECTION 6.
S ECTION 7.
(END)
227.11 (3) of the statutes is amended to read:
227.11 (3) (a) A plan that is submitted to the federal government for the purpose of complying with a requirement of federal law does not confer rule-making authority and cannot be used by an agency as authority to promulgate rules.
No agency may agree to promulgate a rule as a component of a compliance plan unless the agency has explicit and specific statutory authority to promulgate the rule at the time the compliance plan is submitted.
- 2026 Legislature - 4 - LRBs0353/1 MED:cjs&ajk SECTION 7 (b) A settlement agreement, consent decree, or court order does not confer rule-making authority and cannot be used by an agency as authority to promulgate rules.
No agency may agree to promulgate a rule as a term in any settlement agreement, consent decree, or stipulated order of a court unless the agency has explicit and specific statutory authority to promulgate the rule at the time the settlement agreement, consent decree, or stipulated order of a court is executed.
S ECTION 8.
227.135 (2) of the statutes is amended to read:
227.135 (2) An agency that has prepared a statement of the scope of the proposed rule shall present the statement to the department of administration, which shall make a determination as to whether the agency has the explicit and specific authority to promulgate the rule as proposed in the statement of scope and shall report the statement of scope and its determination to the governor who, in his or her discretion, may approve or reject the statement of scope.
The agency may not send the statement to the legislative reference bureau for publication under sub.
(3) until the governor issues a written notice of approval of the statement.
The agency shall also present the statement to the individual or body with policy-making powers over the subject matter of the proposed rule for approval.
The individual or body with policy-making powers may not approve the statement until at least 10 days after publication of the statement under sub.
(3) and, if a preliminary public hearing and comment period are held by the agency under s.
227.136, until the individual or body has received and reviewed any public comments and feedback received from the agency under s.
227.136 (5).
No state employee or official may perform any activity in connection with the drafting of a proposed rule, except for an activity necessary to prepare the statement of the scope of the proposed rule - 2026 Legislature - 5 - LRBs0353/1 MED:cjs&ajk S ECTION 8 until the governor and the individual or body with policy-making powers over the subject matter of the proposed rule approve the statement.
Show all 43 changed rows (3 more)
Previous
Latest
This subsection does not prohibit an agency from performing an activity necessary to prepare a petition and proposed rule for submission under s.
227.26 (4).
(END )
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (2)

How this bill changes current law

8 changes Share ↗

Compared against current U.S. Code AI-generated reading aid — verify against the official bill.

The bill modifies the rule-making authority of state agencies to require explicit and specific statutory authority for promulgating rules and interpreting statutes.

  • 227.11(2)(a)(intro.)

    Rule-making authority is expressly conferred on an agency as follows:

    This change eliminates the introductory clause that generally allows rule-making authority for agencies.

  • 227.11(1m)

    No agency may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency without explicit and specific statutory authority.

    This adds a new requirement that agencies must have explicit and specific authority to interpret statutes.

  • 227.10(2m)

    unless that standard, requirement, or threshold is explicitly required or explicitly permitted by statute or by a rule that has been promulgated in accordance with this subchapter → unless that standard, requirement, or threshold is explicitly and specifically required or explicitly and specifically permitted by statute or by a rule that has been promulgated in accordance with this subchapter

    This modifies the language to require both explicit and specific authority for implementing or enforcing standards.

  • 18.03(2)(b)

    The authority granted by this paragraph shall not exceed the authority granted by s. 227.11 (2) (a). → The authority granted by this paragraph shall not exceed the authority granted by s. 227.11 (2) (a).

    This clarifies the limitations on the commission's authority to interpret statutes without exceeding the stated authority.

  • 227.11(2)(d)

    An agency may promulgate rules implementing or interpreting a statute that it will enforce or administer after publication of the statute but prior to the statute’s effective date. → An agency may promulgate rules implementing or interpreting a statute that it will enforce or administer after publication of the authorizing statute but prior to the statute’s effective date.

    This change reflects more precise wording regarding the agency's ability to promulgate rules before the effective date of a statute.

  • 227.11(3)(a)

    unless the agency has explicit statutory authority to promulgate the rule at the time the compliance plan is submitted. → unless the agency has explicit and specific statutory authority to promulgate the rule at the time the compliance plan is submitted.

    This adds the requirement for explicit and specific authority regarding rules in compliance plans.

  • 227.11(3)(b)

    unless the agency has explicit statutory authority to promulgate the rule at the time the settlement agreement, consent decree, or stipulated order of a court is executed. → unless the agency has explicit and specific statutory authority to promulgate the rule at the time the settlement agreement, consent decree, or stipulated order of a court is executed.

    This modifies the requirement to specify that explicit and specific authority is needed for rules related to court orders.

  • 227.135(2)

    whether the agency has the explicit authority to promulgate the rule as proposed in the statement of scope → whether the agency has the explicit and specific authority to promulgate the rule as proposed in the statement of scope

    This adds the need for specific authority in the determination of the agency's ability to propose rules.

Action History

  1. Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

  2. Fiscal estimate received

  3. Fiscal estimate received

  4. Fiscal estimate received

  5. Fiscal estimate received

  6. Fiscal estimate received

  7. Fiscal estimate received

  8. Fiscal estimate received

  9. Fiscal estimate received

  10. Fiscal estimate received

  11. Fiscal estimate received

  12. Fiscal estimate received

  13. Fiscal estimate received

  14. Fiscal estimate received

  15. Available for scheduling

  16. Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs, Ayes 3, Noes 2

  17. Report adoption of Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by Committee on Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs, Ayes 3, Noes 2

  18. Fiscal estimate received

  19. Executive action taken

  20. Fiscal estimate received

  21. Fiscal estimate received

  22. Fiscal estimate received

  23. Fiscal estimate received

  24. Fiscal estimate received

  25. Public hearing held

  26. Senate Substitute Amendment 1 offered by Senator Jacque

  27. Read first time and referred to Committee on Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs

  28. Introduced by Senators Jacque, Quinn, Hutton, Kapenga, Nass, Bradley and Cabral-Guevara; cosponsored by Representatives B. Jacobson, Gustafson, Hurd, Tucker, Tusler, Sortwell, Allen, Behnke, Callahan, Dittrich, Goeben, Green, Gundrum, Kaufert, Knodl, Kreibich, Maxey, Moses, Murphy, Neylon, O'Connor, Penterman, Petersen, Piwowarczyk, Rodriguez, VanderMeer, Wichgers, Wittke, Spiros and Armstrong

Sponsors

  • B. Jacobson · Cosponsor
  • Gustafson · Cosponsor
  • Hurd · Cosponsor
  • Tucker · Cosponsor
  • Tusler · Cosponsor
  • Sortwell · Cosponsor
  • Allen · Cosponsor
  • Behnke · Cosponsor
  • Callahan · Cosponsor
  • Dittrich · Cosponsor
  • Goeben · Cosponsor
  • Green · Cosponsor
  • Gundrum · Cosponsor
  • Kaufert · Cosponsor
  • Knodl · Cosponsor
  • Kreibich · Cosponsor
  • Maxey · Cosponsor
  • Moses · Cosponsor
  • Murphy · Cosponsor
  • Neylon · Cosponsor
  • O'Connor · Cosponsor
  • Penterman · Cosponsor
  • Petersen · Cosponsor
  • Piwowarczyk · Cosponsor
  • Rodriguez · Cosponsor
  • VanderMeer · Cosponsor
  • Wichgers · Cosponsor
  • Wittke · Cosponsor
  • Spiros · Cosponsor
  • Armstrong · Cosponsor
  • André Jacque · Primary
  • Romaine Quinn · Cosponsor
  • Rob Hutton · Cosponsor
  • Chris Kapenga · Cosponsor
  • Steve Nass · Cosponsor
  • Julian Bradley · Cosponsor
  • Rachael Cabral-Guevara · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 36 co-sponsors · 95 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (36)

Not signed on (95)

95 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 95 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Subjects

public-safety technology
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 940 do?
An Act to repeal 227.11 (2) (a) (intro.); to renumber 227.11 (2) (a) 1. to 3.; to amend 18.03 (2) (b) and 227.11 (2) (d); to create 227.11 (1m) of the statutes;
Who sponsors SB 940?
SB 940 is sponsored by B. Jacobson, Gustafson, Hurd, Tucker, Tusler, Sortwell, Allen, Behnke, Callahan, Dittrich, Goeben, Green, Gundrum, Kaufert, Knodl, Kreibich, Maxey, Moses, Murphy, Neylon, O'Connor, Penterman, Petersen, Piwowarczyk, Rodriguez, VanderMeer, Wichgers, Wittke, Spiros, Armstrong, Jacque, André (Republican), Quinn, Romaine (Republican), Hutton, Rob (Republican), Kapenga, Chris (Republican), Nass, Steve (Republican), Bradley, Julian (Republican), and Cabral-Guevara, Rachael (Republican).
What is the current status of SB 940?
This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced February 06, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track SB 940?
Track SB 940 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 940

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 940

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →