The Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered a decisive blow to legislative oversight of executive branch rulemaking Tuesday, ruling that a Republican-controlled committee's power to suspend administrative rules violates the state constitution.
In *Tony Evers v. Howard Marklein* (2025 WI 36), the court held 4-3 that five statutes granting the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) authority to pause, object to, or suspend administrative rules constitute unconstitutional legislative vetoes. The decision represents a significant victory for Governor Tony Evers in his ongoing constitutional battles with the Republican-controlled legislature.
Chief Justice Jill Karofsky delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, and Janet Protasiewicz. The majority found that JCRAR's powers under Wisconsin Statutes sections 227.19(5)(c), (d), (dm), and 227.26(2)(d), (im) violate bicameralism and presentment requirements of the Wisconsin Constitution.
"The Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules is a legislative committee with the power to pause, object to, or suspend administrative rules for varying lengths of time, both before and after promulgation," Karofsky wrote in the opinion. The court determined these statutory provisions allow the committee to effectively veto executive branch actions without following proper legislative procedures.
The case arose from Governor Evers' challenge to JCRAR's authority over administrative rulemaking. The governor's legal team argued that once an agency complies with all statutory rulemaking requirements, JCRAR cannot pause, object to, or suspend a rule's implementation without passing legislation through the full legislative process.
Defending the committee's authority, legislative respondents contended the challenged statutes represent permissible extensions of legislative power. They argued that administrative rulemaking must "necessarily 'remain subordinate to the legislature with regard to their rulemaking authority,'" citing the Wisconsin Supreme Court's 2020 decision in *Service Employees International Union, Local 1 v. Vos*.
The majority rejected this argument, finding that the committee's unilateral power to suspend rules circumvents constitutional requirements for legislative action. Under Wisconsin's constitution, legislative power must be exercised through bicameralism—passage by both houses of the legislature—and presentment to the governor for signature or veto.
Justice Brian Hagedorn filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, suggesting he agreed with portions of the majority's constitutional analysis while disagreeing with other aspects of the ruling. Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley each filed separate dissenting opinions, though the specific content of their disagreements was not detailed in the available excerpts.
The decision strikes at the heart of Wisconsin's separation of powers doctrine, which divides governmental authority among legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The court's ruling suggests that allowing a legislative committee to unilaterally suspend executive branch rules violates this fundamental constitutional principle.
JCRAR was established as part of Wisconsin's administrative oversight framework, designed to provide legislative review of agency rulemaking. The committee's powers have been a source of ongoing tension between the Republican-controlled legislature and Democratic Governor Evers, particularly regarding environmental regulations, public health measures, and other policy areas where the executive and legislative branches have disagreed.
The constitutional challenge reflects broader national debates over administrative law and the balance of power between legislative and executive branches. Similar disputes have emerged in other states where legislative committees have sought to control or override executive branch rulemaking through mechanisms that bypass traditional legislative processes.
For Wisconsin agencies, the ruling clarifies that administrative rules validly promulgated under statutory authority cannot be suspended by JCRAR action alone. This provides greater certainty for regulatory implementation while requiring the legislature to use formal legislative processes to modify or reject administrative rules.
The decision may force the Wisconsin Legislature to reconsider how it exercises oversight of administrative rulemaking. Rather than committee-based suspension powers, legislative disapproval would need to follow constitutional requirements of bicameral passage and presentment to the governor.
The case was filed as an original action directly with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, bypassing lower courts due to the constitutional significance of the issues involved. The July 8, 2025 decision date indicates the court moved relatively quickly to resolve the separation of powers questions.
This ruling adds to a series of Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions addressing the balance of power between state government branches. The court's composition, with a liberal majority including Chief Justice Karofsky and Justices Bradley, Dallet, and Protasiewicz, proved decisive in the 4-3 outcome.
The decision's impact extends beyond the specific statutes challenged, establishing precedent for evaluating legislative committee powers that may interfere with executive branch authority. Wisconsin agencies can now proceed with administrative rulemaking without concern that JCRAR will unilaterally suspend their validly adopted rules.