Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 227.10 (2026)
Statements of policy and interpretations of law; discrimination prohibited
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
227.10(1)(1) Each agency shall promulgate as a rule each statement of general policy and each interpretation of a statute which it specifically adopts to govern its enforcement or administration of that statute. A statement of policy or an interpretation of a statute made in the decision of a contested case, in a private letter ruling under s. 73.035 or in an agency decision upon or disposition of a particular matter as applied to a specific set of facts does not render it a rule or constitute specific adoption of a rule and is not required to be promulgated as a rule.
227.10(2g)(2g) No agency may seek deference in any proceeding based on the agency’s interpretation of any law.
227.10(2m)(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 required or explicitly 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.
227.10(2p)(2p) No agency may promulgate a rule or take any other action that requires one or more lots to be merged with another lot, for any purpose, without the consent of the owners of the lots that are to be merged.
227.10(3)(a)(a) No rule, either by its terms or in its application, may discriminate for or against any person by reason of sex, race, creed, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry.
227.10(3)(b)(b) A rule may discriminate for or against a person by reason of physical condition or developmental disability as defined in s. 51.01 (5) only if it is strictly necessary to a function of the agency and is supported by data demonstrating that necessity.
227.10(3)(c)(c) Each person affected by a rule is entitled to the same benefits and is subject to the same obligations as any other person under the same or similar circumstances.
227.10(3)(e)(e) Nothing in this subsection prohibits the director of the bureau of merit recruitment and selection in the department of administration from promulgating rules relating to expanded certification under s. 230.25 (1n).
227.10 HistoryHistory: 1985 a. 182; 1987 a. 399; 2003 a. 33 ss. 2368, 9160; 2011 a. 21; 2013 a. 277; 2015 a. 55; 2017 a. 67, 369.
227.10 AnnotationGuidelines promulgated outside the context of one particular contested case do not qualify for exception to the requirement that all rules must be filed under s. 227.023 [now s. 227.20]. Here, failure to file the guideline as a rule did not deprive the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations of the authority to decide contested cases dealing with pregnancy leaves under the sex discrimination statute. Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. DILHR, 68 Wis. 2d 345, 228 N.W.2d 649 (1975).
227.10 AnnotationWhen a party files an application for a license with an administrative agency and the latter points to some announced agency policy of general application as a reason for rejecting the application, such announced policy constitutes a rule, the validity of which the applicant is entitled to have tested in a declaratory action. Schoolway Transportation Co. v. Division of Motor Vehicles, 72 Wis. 2d 223, 240 N.W.2d 403 (1976).
227.10 AnnotationWhen the Department of Transportation (DOT) revised its application of a statute to bring DOT’s practices into conformity with the plain meaning of the statute, DOT followed a course it was obliged to pursue when confronted with its error. This was not a regulation, standard, statement of policy, or general order. Neither was it a statement of general policy or interpretation of a statute. Therefore, there was no requirement that DOT comply with the filing procedures mandated in connection with promulgation of administrative rules. Schoolway Transportation Co. v. Division of Motor Vehicles, 72 Wis. 2d 223, 240 N.W.2d 403 (1976).
227.10 AnnotationThe Department of Transportation (DOT) engaged in administrative rule making when it changed its interpretation of a statute whose terms did not specifically require the interpretation, the interpretation was administered as law, and DOT relied upon the interpretation to deny the issuance of a license in a form in direct contrast to the manner in which the statute was previously administered by DOT. Those who are or will be affected generally by such an interpretation should have the opportunity to be informed as to the manner in which the terms of the statute regulating their operations will be applied. This is accomplished by the issuance and filing procedures under this chapter, and the rule is invalid until such measures are taken. Schoolway Transportation Co. v. Division of Motor Vehicles, 72 Wis. 2d 223, 240 N.W.2d 403 (1976).
227.10 AnnotationThe legislature may constitutionally prescribe a criminal penalty for the violation of an administrative rule. State v. Courtney, 74 Wis. 2d 705, 247 N.W.2d 714 (1976).
227.10 AnnotationA memorandum announcing general policies and specific criteria governing all decisions on good time for mandatory release parole violations was a “rule” and should have been promulgated properly. State ex rel. Clifton v. Young, 133 Wis. 2d 193, 394 N.W.2d 769 (Ct. App. 1986).
227.10 AnnotationAn agency may use policies and guidelines to assist in the implementation of administrative rules provided they are consistent with state and federal legislation. Tannler v. DHSS, 211 Wis. 2d 179, 564 N.W.2d 735 (1997), 96-0118.
227.10 AnnotationAn administrative agency cannot regulate the activities of another agency or promulgate rules to bind another agency without express statutory authority. George v. Schwarz, 2001 WI App 72, 242 Wis. 2d 450, 626 N.W.2d 57, 00-2711.
227.10 AnnotationWhen an agency changes its interpretation of an ambiguous statute, the agency is engaging in rulemaking. The rulemaking exemption described in Schoolway Transportation Co., 72 Wis. 2d 223 (1976), does not apply when the agency fails to identify a plain and unambiguous statutory command necessitating the agency’s new interpretation. Lamar Central Outdoor, LLC v. Division of Hearings & Appeals, 2019 WI 109, 389 Wis. 2d 486, 936 N.W.2d 573, 17-1823.
227.10 AnnotationAn agency may rely upon a grant of authority that is explicit but broad when undertaking agency action, and such an explicit but broad grant of authority complies with sub. (2m). Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, 2021 WI 71, 398 Wis. 2d 386, 961 N.W.2d 346, 16-1688.
227.10 AnnotationSub. (2m) targets, in a general sense, only the distinction between explicit and implicit agency authority. It requires courts to strictly construe an agency’s authorizing statute as granting the agency no implicit authority. Sub. (2m) does not, however, strip an agency of the legislatively granted explicit authority it already has. Nor does it negate a more targeted “directive from the legislature” to “liberally construe” the specific statutes that expressly confer an agency’s authority. Accordingly, for purposes of sub. (2m), if the legislature clearly expresses in a statute’s text that an agency can undertake certain actions, the breadth of the resulting authority will not defeat the legislature’s clear expression. Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, 2021 WI 72, 398 Wis. 2d 433, 961 N.W.2d 611, 18-0059.
227.10 AnnotationSub. (2m) does not strip an agency of the legislatively granted explicit authority it already has. The Spills Law under ch. 292 gives the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) “broad but explicit authority” to enforce a threshold for reporting a PFAS discharge without promulgating a rule. Accordingly, sub. (2m) does not preclude DNR from enforcing a threshold for reporting discharges of PFAS and other emerging contaminants. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Inc. v. Natural Resources Board, 2025 WI 26, 416 Wis. 2d 561, 21 N.W.3d 718, 22-0718.
227.10 AnnotationSub. (1) only applies where an agency seeks to “govern its enforcement or administration” of a statute. Thus, by definition, it does not apply to guidance documents. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Inc. v. Natural Resources Board, 2025 WI 26, 416 Wis. 2d 561, 21 N.W.3d 718, 22-0718.
227.10 AnnotationNothing in the language of 2011 Wis. Act 21 alters existing, properly promulgated rules. Under sub. (2m), agencies may continue to implement and enforce existing rules, including standards therein, provided the rule was “promulgated in accordance with” the rulemaking procedures in place at the time the rule was adopted. OAG 4-20.
227.10 AnnotationMaking “Explicit Authority” Explicit: Deciphering Wis. Act 21’s Prescriptions for Agency Rulemaking Authority. Koschnick. 2019 WLR 993.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 84
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, 2021 WI 72 (Wis. 2021).
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, 2021 WI 72 (Wis. 2021). “In 2016, then-Attorney General Brad Schimel released an opinion regarding Wis. Stat. § 227.10 (2m) and its effect on the DNR's well-permit authority and our holding in Lake Beulah.”
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, 2021 WI 71 (Wis. 2021). “Act 21 at issue in this case is Wis. Stat. § 227.10 (2m). 6As the ALJ noted, "No witness for the dairy or the DNR disputed these numbers.”
Peggy Z. Coyne v. Scott Walker, 2016 WI 38 (Wis. 2016). “Thus, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.10 (1) and .10(2m), DHFS screeners could not use the instruction to determine whether someone qualified for limited care until it validly promulgated the instruction as a rule.”
Kathleen Papa v. DHS, 2020 WI 66 (Wis. 2020). “" ¶9 PHP alleged that DHS's Perfection Policy was: (1) an unpromulgated rule under Wis. Stat. § 227.10 ; (2) "inconsistent with Chapter 49 of the Wisconsin [Statutes] and chapters DHS 107 and 108 of the Administrative Code"; and (3) an unconstitutional taking.”
Seider v. O'connell, 2000 WI 76 (Wis. 2000). “" Wis. Stat. § 227.10 (2). The very statute that confers rule-making authority concludes with the admonition that "a rule is not valid if it exceeds the bounds of correct interpretation.”
Heritage Credit Union v. Off. of Credit Unions, 2001 WI App 213 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “01 (13), 14 and therefore it must be promulgated as required by Wis. Stat. § 227.10 . In the absence of a validly promulgated rule, Heritage continues, there is nothing in Wis.”
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 2005 WI 93 (Wis. 2005). “Additionally, Calpine asserts that the determination that gas-powered plants could not support baseload needs is an invalid, unpromulgated "rule" that the PSC adopted in this case, bypassing the proper procedures for creating rules set out in Wis. Stat. § 227.10 (1). ś 121. We…”
Wisconsin Mfrs. & Com., Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2025 WI 26 (Wis. 2025). “§ 227.10 obligates the DNR to promulgate its new policies, statutory interpretations, and standards, adopted by the DNR to govern its enforcement of Chapter 292, as rules pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 227.”
Cholvin v. Wisconsin Dep't of Health & Fam. Servs., 2008 WI App 127 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “01 (13) (2005-06), 1 and must be promulgated as such pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.10 . Because it was not, Cholvin argues that the instruction is invalid.”
Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. State, 2011 WI 54 (Wis. 2011). “The GLLF relies on Wis. Stat. § 227.10 (2m) — "No agency may implement or enforce any standard, requirement, or threshold, including a term or condition of any license issued by the agency, unless that standard, requirement, or threshold is explicitly required or explicitly…”
Tavern League of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Andrea Palm, 2021 WI 33 (Wis. 2021). “See Wis. Stat. § 227.10 (1); see also Frankenthal v.”
State v. Outagamie Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 2001 WI 78 (Wis. 2001). “To the extent that it administratively prohibits all variances in a certain class of cases, it conflicts with the general grant of authority to county boards of adjustment over variance decisions. See Wis. Stat. § 59.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.10(1) — 17 cases
Wisconsin Mfrs. & Com., Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2025 WI 26 (Wis. 2025). “§ 227.10 obligates the DNR to promulgate its new policies, statutory interpretations, and standards, adopted by the DNR to govern its enforcement of Chapter 292, as rules pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 227.”
Milwaukee Area Jt. Plumbing Apprenticeship Comm. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 493 N.W.2d 744 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
Browne v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 485 N.W.2d 376 (Wis. 1992).
Heritage Credit Union v. Off. of Credit Unions, 2001 WI App 213 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “01 (13), 14 and therefore it must be promulgated as required by Wis. Stat. § 227.10 . In the absence of a validly promulgated rule, Heritage continues, there is nothing in Wis.”
Tavern League of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Andrea Palm, 2021 WI 33 (Wis. 2021). “See Wis. Stat. § 227.10 (1); see also Frankenthal v.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.10(2) — 12 cases
State Pub. Intervenor v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 503 N.W.2d 305 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993).
Citizens for Sensible Zoning, Inc. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 280 N.W.2d 702 (Wis. 1979).
Plumbers Local No. 75 v. Coughlin, 481 N.W.2d 297 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
Repub. Airlines, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 464 N.W.2d 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).
Beloit Corp. v. State Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 449 N.W.2d 299 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.10(2g) — 2 cases
Derrick A. Sanders v. State of Wisconsin Claims Bd. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
Saputo Cheese USA, Inc. v. DOR (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.10(2m) — 14 cases
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, 2021 WI 72 (Wis. 2021). “In 2016, then-Attorney General Brad Schimel released an opinion regarding Wis. Stat. § 227.10 (2m) and its effect on the DNR's well-permit authority and our holding in Lake Beulah.”
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, 2021 WI 71 (Wis. 2021). “Act 21 at issue in this case is Wis. Stat. § 227.10 (2m). 6As the ALJ noted, "No witness for the dairy or the DNR disputed these numbers.”
Victor Ortiz, Jr. v. Kevin A. Carr, 2022 WI App 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
Wisconsin Mfrs. & Com., Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2025 WI 26 (Wis. 2025). “§ 227.10 obligates the DNR to promulgate its new policies, statutory interpretations, and standards, adopted by the DNR to govern its enforcement of Chapter 292, as rules pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 227.”
Serv. Employees Int'l Union (SEIU), Local 1 v. Robin Vos, 2020 WI 67 (Wis. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.