Gov. Tony Evers vetoed Republican bills Friday that would have limited state agencies’ rulemaking abilities, prohibited “rights of nature ordinances,” eliminated “race-based” programs within the University of Wisconsin system and allowed for telehealth care providers with licenses from out of state to practice in Wisconsin. 

Bills to limit rulemaking rejected

A set of bills that sought to limit agencies’ rulemaking abilities were also vetoed. Republican lawmakers introduced the legislation, called the “Red Tape Reset,” alongside the Wisconsin  Institute for Law and Liberty, a conservative legal advocacy group. 

SB 275 would have required agency scope statements, which are necessary to start the rulemaking process, from being used for one proposed rule and would have set a six-month expiration period for the use of a scope statement for an emergency rule. 

SB 276 would have allowed those who have challenged the validity of an administrative rule to receive attorney fees and costs if a court declares a rule invalid. 

SB 277 would have implemented a seven years expiration date on all administrative rules unless a rule is adopted again through an agency process. 

SB 289 would have required agencies to make cuts to offset the cost associated with new regulations.

The bills were introduced in light of recent decisions by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that have limited lawmakers’ ability to oversee the rulemaking process, including by blocking rules indefinitely.

“The Legislature asks me, in effect, to undo this decision, enabling the Legislature to go right back to indefinitely obstructing the People’s Work and returning state government to inaction, delays and gridlock,” Evers said in his veto message for SB276. “I decline to do so.”

Rights of Nature prohibition

Evers also vetoed SB 420, which would have prohibited local governments from passing ordinances protecting the rights of nature. GOP lawmakers introduced the measure after Green Bay and Milwaukee pursued symbolic ordinances meant to protect the rights of bodies of water to be kept clean. It is a concept that originates from provisions in constitutions of some South American countries and Native American tribes such as Wisconsin’s Ho-Chunk Nation.

Evers said that he objected to lawmakers “continued efforts to restrict and preempt local control across our state” and GOP lawmakers’ failure to acknowledge that “climate change is affecting our Wisconsin way of life…” and efforts to “make it even harder for Wisconsin to respond to and mitigate the effects of our changing climate.”

“I have always believed the state should be a partner in — and not an obstacle to — the important work our local partners do every day,” Evers said. “ I trust our local governments and the Tribal Nations of Wisconsin to know best how to address environmental concerns within their communities and how to protect the natural resources that are vital to local health, economies and quality of life.”

UW free speech penalties

SB 498 would have barred UW campuses from being able to prohibit speakers from campus and prohibited the establishment of “free speech zones” among other actions. Republican lawmakers supportive of the bill said the goal was to protect free speech and academic expression.

Violations of the provisions in the bill could have resulted in financial penalties including a two-year tuition freeze for more than one penalty on a campus within a five-year period. 

The UW system already implements a policy that establishes its commitment to freedom of speech and expression along with some accountability measures including conduct and due process mechanisms to address violations.

This was the second iteration of the bill. The idea was first developed by Republicans after a controversial survey of UW campuses, which had an average response rate of 12.5%, found that a majority of students who responded said they were afraid to express views on certain issues in class.

Lawmakers introduced the proposal this legislative session just six days after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, saying it was just one example of conservatives having their voices silenced on college campuses. 

Evers said in his veto message that he disagrees with lawmakers’ attempts to interfere in the day-to-day operation of the state’s higher education system. 

“Students, faculty and staff across university and technical college campuses in Wisconsin continue to discuss diverse ideas and perspectives, engage in thoughtful and difficult discussions with each other, grapple with complex issues and challenges, navigate conversations with people who have different experiences and backgrounds, and hear from other students, as well as faculty and staff, who have viewpoints from across the political spectrum,” Evers said. “I have no doubt this will continue to be the case on our campuses — as it should — so long as Republican lawmakers remain unable to inflict their radical and purely ideological agenda on higher education institutions across Wisconsin through legislative efforts like this.”

Evers also vetoed SB 652, which sought to eliminate “race-based” programs offered through the state’s higher education system, including the minority teacher loan program and minority undergraduate grants, by refocusing the programs to focus on “disadvantaged” students. The bill defined the term “disadvantaged” as applying to people who have “experienced any unfavorable economic, familial, geographic, physical or other personal hardship.”

Evers said he objected to lawmakers trying to create “new censorship rules that are designed to police language on our higher education campuses and ultimately prevent our state’s higher education institutions from acknowledging students come to our college campuses with unique and diverse backgrounds, experiences, and needs.”

The bill is part of GOP lawmakers’ attempts to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts throughout the state.

Another bill related to the UW system, SB 532, was also vetoed. It would have prohibited UW institutions from charging students additional fees for exclusively online courses.

“If lawmakers sincerely cared about the soaring costs of higher education for students on Wisconsin campuses, they would have approved any number of the countless measures and investments I have proposed over my tenure to ensure the University of Wisconsin System can survive and thrive without having to frequently rely on raising tuition or increasing various fees for students and families,” Evers said.

GOP health care bill vetoed 

SB 214 would have allowed out-of-state health care providers to provide telehealth care services in Wisconsin if they possess a credential as a health care provider issued by another state. 

Lawmakers who supported the bill said it would help Wisconsin by increasing the number of health care providers able to help Wisconsinites. Evers said in his veto message, however, that he was concerned about allowing providers to practice in Wisconsin if they are licensed in another state that has lower standards.

“[The bill] fails to address the fundamental concern I have that out-of-state licensing requirements may not be as rigorous and thorough as the standards we have in Wisconsin,” Evers said. “I object to having out-of-state health care providers potentially bypass the high standards we have for instate licensed health care providers to protect patients and families.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Wisconsin Assembly advanced proposals that would restrict executive rulemaking powers and eliminate “race-based” programs in higher education Thursday. 

Wisconsin Republicans have been looking for ways to limit agencies’ administrative rulemaking abilities and exercise additional control over the process in the aftermath of several state Supreme Court rulings. 

One of those rulings, the Evers v. Marklein II decision issued on July 8, 2025, found unconstitutional statutes that allowed the 10-member Joint Committee on the Review of Administrative Rules’ to review and suspend administrative rules.

AJR 133 would allow state lawmakers to suspend indefinitely or temporarily administrative rules that are promulgated by state agencies with a vote of the full Senate and Assembly. The proposal passed 52-45 along party lines. 

“No body of our state government is more accountable to the people of our state than the Legislature, and these bills will restore our ability to represent our constituents and provide them with the regulatory accountability and predictability they need to prosper,” Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee) said during the floor debate. 

Constitutional amendment proposals must pass two consecutive sessions of the Legislature and be approved by a majority of voters before becoming law. This is the proposal’s first consideration. It still needs to pass the Senate to advance to a second consideration. 

The Assembly also concurred in four bills related to administrative rulemaking that were part of a package titled the “red tape reset,” which was introduced in May with the support of the conservative legal group Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL). 

One bill SB 277 would have all administrative rules sunset after seven years unless a rule is adopted again through an agency process. The Assembly amended the bill, so it will go back to the Senate. 

Three of the bills will now go to Evers for consideration. Those include SB 276, which would allow those who have challenged the validity of an administrative rule to receive attorney fees and costs if a court declares a rule invalid; SB 275, which would limit the use of scope statements to one proposed rule; and SB 289, which would require agencies to make cuts to offset the cost associated with new regulations.

The constitutional amendment as well as several other bills are the result of a task force organized by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and chaired by Jacobson.

AB 910, which passed on a voice vote, would establish a process to review fees every 6 years. 

AB 955, which passed on a voice vote, would repeal the current language in state law that allows agencies to promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency if it is necessary to enforce the statute. The bill would replace the language, prohibiting agencies from promulgating rules interpreting the provisions of any statute without explicit and specific statutory authority. 

AB 994, which passed on a voice vote, would restrict agencies from promulgating rules if they are delinquent in complying with the reporting requirement and expand the process for repealing certain rules. 

AB 995, which passed on a voice vote, would change the default effective date for permanent administrative rules to the first day of the seventh month after the date of final publication.

Democratic lawmakers sought to get votes on the floor on several issues, introducing an array of amendments to Republican bills. Some of those included protecting access to contraception and abortion in Wisconsin, requiring former lawmakers to be at least a year out of the Legislature before they can become lobbyists and clarifying the residency requirements for lawmakers. However, none received votes as Republicans took procedural steps to avoid bringing them up. 

“These are going to keep coming forward,” Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) warned her Republican colleagues as she criticized them for not voting on the bills. “Democrats aren’t giving up on fighting for our constituents, whether we’re talking about the government, whether we’re talking about reproductive freedom or frankly, whether we’re talking about things that would reduce the cost of living for folks in the state. The Republicans time and time again, refused to take a vote.” 

The Assembly also approved several bills that will now head to Evers’ desk. 

The Assembly passed SB 652 which seeks to eliminate “race-based” programs offered through the state’s higher education system, including the minority teacher loan program and minority undergraduate grants. Under the bill, it would instead require the programs to focus on “disadvantaged” students, meaning those who have “experienced any unfavorable economic, familial, geographic, physical or other personal hardship.” It passed 53-45 along party lines and will now go to Evers for consideration. 

SB 498, which passed, would place a number of restrictions in state statute that Republican lawmakers argue would help protect free speech. Those include barring UW institutions from restricting speech from a speaker, creating “free speech” zones, charging security fees as a part of a permit application and sanctioning people for discriminatory harassment unless the speech “targets its victim on the basis of a protected class under law, and is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars a student from receiving equal access to educational opportunities or benefits.” 

SB 405, which would create a civil cause of action against health care providers who perform gender transition procedures on someone under the age of 18 if the patient claims to be injured, passed along party lines. It will now go to Evers, who is likely to veto it.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Wisconsin State Senate passed bills that would restrict administrative rulemaking and that would place restrictions on health care for transgender youth. The bills are likely to be vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers.

Bills to restrict transgender youth headed to Evers

Democrats slammed five bills passed by Republicans that would restrict transgender children from receiving gender affirming care, from choosing the names and pronouns used for them in school and from participating on sports teams that align with their gender identity. Republicans said the bills are meant to protect children. Each bill passed 18-15 along party lines.

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) said the bills are part of a larger effort to “legislate trans people out of public life.” He noted the Legislature’s emphasis on bills related to transgender people and said he felt a responsibility as a gay man to speak against them.

“Why are gay people and transgender people often lumped together politically? Why do we stand with each other? In large part because it is the same stereotypes. It is the same bias… and rigid ideas of male and female that have led to discrimination against gay people,” Spreitzer said.

Spreitzer said that even bringing the bills forward would do harm to transgender youth.

“It does harm to the mental health of our youth,” Spreitzer said. A 2024 survey by The Trevor Project found that 91% of LGBTQ+ young people in Wisconsin reported that recent politics negatively impacted their well-being. “What do they mean by recent politics? They mean bills like these as well as similar things coming down from the Trump administration.”

He added that he asked lawmakers to stop moving the bills forward during the committee process. “Yet forward they move, despite the Republican majority knowing full well that Gov. Evers will veto all five of these bills. They will not become law this session.”

Evers has vetoed similar bills several times over his seven years in office. Each time, he has promised to veto “any bill that makes Wisconsin a less safe, less inclusive, and less welcoming place for LGBTQ people and kids.”

Spreitzer said Senate and Assembly Democrats would sustain those vetoes if necessary.

One bill passed by the Senate is SB 405, which would create a civil cause of action against health care providers who perform gender transition procedures on someone under the age of 18 if they claim to be injured.

Spreitzer said SB 405 is a “blatant effort to threaten health care professionals with privileged litigation in the hopes that it will create a chilling effect and that they will stop providing gender affirming care.”

Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove) made personal pleas, speaking to her own experience as the mother of a transgender child during the floor session. She said it would make life harder for transgender children and their families.

“It’s not about protecting children, it’s about controlling them,” Ratcliff said, adding that decisions about gender affirming care are deeply private and should only be made by families and doctors.

“Why are we not helping families instead of burdening them? Why are we attacking children instead of protecting them? Why are we prioritizing culture wars over real problems?” Ratcliff said. “It’s really pretty obvious you want to use kids as pawns in a cynical political crusade. It’s not your kids that you’re using. It’s my kid and other people’s kids being used as pawns. It’s really shameful.”

“Stop bullying trans kids, and stop bullying their families,” Ratcliff said. 

The Senate also concurred in AB 100 and AB 102, which would prohibit transgender students from being able to participate on sports teams that align with their gender identity at Wisconsin K-12 public and choice schools, University of Wisconsin campuses and technical colleges.

Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), the lead author of the sports and the civil action bills, said he has met with the “transgender community” while working on the legislation and added that it “doesn’t matter who that is, doesn’t matter what their name is, but all that matters is I’ve been able to reach out.”

Hutton said his bills would help “protect fairness, safety and privacy” in girls’ and women’s sports. He said SB 405 would ensure that there is the “same level of support for those who realize now that the issue that they’re physically dealing with and mentally dealing with, that they were wronged and they believe there should be some accountability to the health care professional.”

The Senate also concurred in AB 103, which would require that school districts adopt policies to inform and get permission from parents before a student would be allowed to use names and pronouns that differ from their legal ones, and AB 104, which would prohibit health care professionals from providing medical gender affirming care for those under 18.

Ratcliff said the bills are part of a political strategy for Republican lawmakers.

“Last year, you weaponized trans kids for campaign points and you’re doing it again,” Ratcliff said. “In both cases, the cost is the same. Real children are being harmed. It didn’t work last year and it’s not going to work this year.”

Wisconsin has a slate of elections coming up this year including a state Supreme Court race in April as well as an open governor’s race and state legislative races that will determine control of the Senate and Assembly.

The only Republican gubernatorial candidate, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, kicked off his campaign by playing up culture war issues including promising to keep transgender girls off of girls’ sports teams. He has also recently released a campaign statement calling on the New Richmond School District to reverse its current policy and bar transgender girls from being able to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.

Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee) accused Democratic lawmakers of  engaging in “political theater” and said anyone who allowed a minor to “make irreversible decisions is a catastrophic failure of parenting and society in general.”

All of the bills except SB 405 will now go to Evers for consideration.

GOP seeks to restrict administrative rules

Republican lawmakers introduced bills — packaged together as the “red tape reset” and supported by the conservative legal group Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) in May. The bills would increase legislative control over decisions made by executive agencies. Republicans have increased their efforts to limit and restrict agency rulemaking powers in the aftermath of state Supreme Court rulings that limited their ability to block rules.

SB 275 would limit scope statements, which are the first step in the rulemaking process, so they could only be used for one proposed rule. 

SB 276 would allow those who have challenged the validity of administrative rule to receive attorney fees and costs if a court declares a rule invalid. 

SB 277 would have all administrative rules sunset after seven years unless a rule is adopted again through an agency process.

SB 289 would require agencies to make cuts to offset the cost associated with new regulations.

Each bill passed 18-15 along party-lines. They will now go to the Assembly for consideration.

Democratic lawmakers did not speak on the bills during the floor session.

Megan Novak, the Americans For Prosperity Wisconsin state director, said in a statement that Wisconsin has been overregulated and that has restricted its economic growth.

“Between our excessive regulations and the misguided decision by our partisan Supreme Court that removed a necessary legislative check on the governor in the rulemaking process, Wisconsin businesses and families deserve regulatory relief,” Novak said. “These bills are a welcome step to get Wisconsin back on the right track.”

Grooming bill heads to Evers

The Senate concurred in a bill that would make “grooming” a felony crime in Wisconsin. 

The bill was introduced after a report from the CapTimes that found there were over 200 investigations into teacher licenses stemming from allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023, though authors of the proposal say they have been working on the legislation for longer.

Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) told reporters ahead of the floor session that the bill would protect “our vulnerable population from supposed trusted adults who would do our kids harm.”

“I can’t bear to think of the many dangers my grandkids will face, however, with this bill, I can sleep just a little bit better,” James said, adding that the bill would act as a deterrent to tell people that “our kids are not targets.”

The bill would define grooming as “a course of conduct, pattern of behavior, or series of acts with the intention to condition, seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child for the purpose of producing, distributing or possessing depictions of the child engaged in sexually explicit conduct.”

Under the bill, a person convicted of a grooming charge would be guilty of a Class G felony. The charge would increase to a Class F felony if the person is in a position of trust or authority, and to a Class E felony if the child has a disability and to a Class D felony if the violation involves two or more children. A convicted person would need to register as a sex offender.

The bill, which passed the Assembly 93-6 last month, will now go to Evers for consideration. 

Another bill that was introduced following the CapTimes report passed on a voice vote. SB 785 would require the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to maintain an online licensing portal that is searchable by the public at no cost. The portal would need to include information on license holders under investigation and the name of individuals who have had their licenses revoked.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

GOP lawmakers said they needed to reimplement checks on the executive branch. Gov. Tony Evers delivers his 2025 state budget address. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Republican lawmakers on Wednesday argued for a constitutional amendment proposal and a set of bills that would allow them greater say over the administrative rulemaking process.

The effort follows Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions in recent years that have limited lawmakers’ ability to restrict administrative rulemaking. The proposals are the result of a task force on administrative rulemaking organized by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester). 

Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee), who chaired the task force, cited the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Evers v. Marklein II decision issued on July 8, 2025 that found unconstitutional statutes that allowed the 10-member Joint Committee on the Review of Administrative Rules’ to review and suspend administrative rules.

Jacobson’s constitutional amendment proposal, AJR 133, would allow state lawmakers to suspend indefinitely or temporarily administrative rules that are promulgated by state agencies with a vote of the full Senate and Assembly.

Jacobson said the proposal would “ensure that the Legislature remains an effective check on the administrative state and that our constituents can still look to us to be a voice in the rulemaking and regulatory process.” 

As a constitutional amendment, the proposal would need to pass the Legislature in two consecutive sessions before it would go to voters for a final vote. It would not require approval from the governor. This is the proposal’s first consideration. 

AB 955, coauthored by Jacobson, would repeal the current state statute that includes language allowing agencies to promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency if it is necessary to enforce the statute. The bill would replace the language to prohibit agencies from promulgating rules interpreting the provisions of any statute without explicit and specific statutory authority.

Jacobson said the proposals are not about giving Republicans an advantage, but rather are about “ensuring good governance and our democratic system of checks and balances are in effect, regardless of which parties are in control of which branch of our state government.” 

Rep. Mike Bare (D-Verona)  expressed concerns about whether the bill would implement some “real tight constraints” on what agencies are able to do. 

“We trust our executive branch with some discretion over making things happen, implementing the policies and the statutes that we’re trying to have happen,” Bare said. “I’m wondering if that creates scenarios in the future [that]… limit too much what they’re able to do.”

“The key is that that statute should specifically and explicitly say, you have authority to promulgate rules around implementing the statute that we in the Legislature have passed,” Jacobson said in response. “That still gives them considerable discretion… Now if they go beyond what our intent was, that’s why we have the backstop of the constitutional amendment to say that rule that has taken effect now by joint resolution, we’re gonna suspend it, maybe temporarily.” 

Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) said he was glad the issue was in front of the committee. 

“The Legislature has been ceding authority for decades, and it probably goes back to the legislators not wanting to make tough decisions or take tough votes, but over time, a lot of authorities have been given to the executive branch. The agencies have absorbed a lot of that,” Knodl said. “Now we have a Supreme Court that is dialing back even more of our authority.” 

“Quite frankly, we’re on a path of irrelevance as a Legislature,” he added.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE