Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 227.11 (2026)
Agency rule-making authority
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
227.11(1)(1) Except as expressly provided, this chapter does not confer rule-making authority upon or augment the rule-making authority of any agency.
227.11(2)(a)(a) Each agency may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute, but a rule is not valid if the rule exceeds the bounds of correct interpretation. All of the following apply to the promulgation of a rule interpreting the provisions of a statute enforced or administered by an agency:
227.11(2)(a)1.1. 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 conferred on the agency by the legislature.
227.11(2)(a)2.2. 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 conferred on the agency by the legislature.
227.11(2)(a)3.3. A statutory provision containing a specific standard, requirement, or threshold does not confer on the agency the authority to promulgate, enforce, or administer a rule that contains a standard, requirement, or threshold that is more restrictive than the standard, requirement, or threshold contained in the statutory provision.
227.11(2)(b)(b) Each agency may prescribe forms and procedures in connection with any statute enforced or administered by it, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute, but this paragraph does not authorize the imposition of a substantive requirement in connection with a form or procedure.
227.11(2)(c)(c) Each agency authorized to exercise discretion in deciding individual cases may formalize the general policies evolving from its decisions by promulgating the policies as rules which the agency shall follow until they are amended or repealed. A rule promulgated in accordance with this paragraph is valid only to the extent that the agency has discretion to base an individual decision on the policy expressed in the rule.
227.11(2)(d)(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. A rule promulgated under this paragraph may not take effect prior to the effective date of the statute that it implements or interprets.
227.11(2)(e)(e) An agency may not inform a member of the public in writing that a rule is or will be in effect unless the rule has been filed under s. 227.20 or unless the member of the public requests that information.
227.11(3)(a)(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 statutory authority to promulgate the rule at the time the compliance plan is submitted.
227.11(3)(b)(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 statutory authority to promulgate the rule at the time the settlement agreement, consent decree, or stipulated order of a court is executed.
227.11 HistoryHistory: 1985 a. 182; 1991 a. 209; 2011 a. 21; 2013 a. 125, 136, 210, 277, 278, 295, 320, 332, 361, 363; 2017 a. 369.
227.11 AnnotationTo expressly authorize a rule, the enabling statute need not spell out every detail of the rule. If it did, no rule would be necessary. Accordingly, whether the exact words used in an administrative rule appear in the statute is not the question. This principle has been characterized in the case law as the “elemental approach.” Under the elemental approach, the reviewing court should identify the elements of the enabling statute and match the rule against those elements. If the rule matches the statutory elements, then the statute expressly authorizes the rule. Wisconsin Ass’n of State Prosecutors v. WERC, 2018 WI 17, 380 Wis. 2d 1, 907 N.W.2d 425, 15-2224.
227.11 AnnotationWhen administrative agencies promulgate rules, they are exercising legislative power that the legislature has chosen to delegate to them by statute. Stated otherwise, agencies have no inherent constitutional authority to make rules, and their rule-making powers can be repealed by the legislature. It follows that the legislature may place limitations and conditions on an agency’s exercise of rulemaking authority, including establishing the procedures by which agencies may promulgate rules. Koschkee v. Taylor, 2019 WI 76, 387 Wis. 2d 552, 929 N.W.2d 600, 17-2278.
227.11 AnnotationRulemaking is a legislative power that does not fall within the state superintendent of public instruction’s supervisory constitutional authority under article X, section 1, of the Wisconsin Constitution. Rulemaking is a legislative delegation to the state superintendent; therefore, it may be limited or taken away, as the legislature chooses. Koschkee v. Taylor, 2019 WI 76, 387 Wis. 2d 552, 929 N.W.2d 600, 17-2278.
227.11 AnnotationSub. (2) (a) 2. does not alter explicit grants of rulemaking authority, regardless of whether the rulemaking provision in which the authority is granted could be characterized as broad or “general.” OAG 4-20.
227.11 AnnotationThe plain language of sub. (2) (a) 3. does not alter explicit grants of rulemaking authority to prescribe standards. The fact that the legislature mandates a specific standard in one statute does not, in itself, alter the agency’s ability to promulgate, enforce, or administer a different standard enacted pursuant to a second statutory source of rulemaking authority. This holds true even when the second standard could be characterized as “more restrictive” than the first. OAG 4-20.
227.11 AnnotationMaking “Explicit Authority” Explicit: Deciphering Wis. Act 21’s Prescriptions for Agency Rulemaking Authority. Koschnick. 2019 WLR 993.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, 2021 WI 71 (Wis. 2021).
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, 2021 WI 71 (Wis. 2021). “10 (2m) in context, we note that in Wis. Stat. § 227.11 (2)(a)3., the legislature used the word "specific.”
Seider v. O'connell, 2000 WI 76 (Wis. 2000). “" Wis. Stat. § 227.11 (2)(a). ¶ 22. The legislature long has recognized the potential for conflict between statutes and administrative rules, and it has authorized declaratory judgments as a means to test the validity of rules.”
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, 2021 WI 72 (Wis. 2021). “¶30 The Intervenors' resort to Wis. Stat. § 227.11 (2)(a) does not save its argument.”
Kristi Koschkee v. Carolyn Stanford Taylor, 929 N.W.2d 600 (Wis. 2019). “§ 227.11 (2)(a) ("Each agency may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute, but a rule is not valid if the rule exceeds the bounds of correct…”
Peggy Z. Coyne v. Scott Walker, 2016 WI 38 (Wis. 2016). “12 Wis. Stat. § 227.11 (2)(a) (an agency may promulgate rules to effectuate the purpose of any statute administered by it); see also, e.”
Wisconsin's Env't Decade, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 267 N.W.2d 609 (Wis. 1978). “Sec. 227.11, Stats., provides that "every decision when made, signed and filed shall be served forthwith .”
Wisconsin Citizens Concerned for Cranes & Doves v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2004 WI 40 (Wis. 2004). “Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.11 (2) (d), "an agency may promulgate rules implementing or interpreting a statute that it will enforce or *336 administer.”
Orion Flight Servs., Inc. v. Basler Flight Serv., 2006 WI 51 (Wis. 2006). “Wis. Stat. § 227.11 (2)(a). When an agency issues a rule pursuant to its rule-making authority, that rule has the effect of law.”
Tavern League of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Andrea Palm, 2021 WI 33 (Wis. 2021). “See Wis. Stat. § 227.11 (2)(a) ("Each agency may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute .”
Sonday v. Dave Kohel Agency, Inc., 2006 WI 92 (Wis. 2006). “§ 227.11(2)(b) confers rulemaking authority on the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing (Department) to effectuate the purpose of chapter 452.”
Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. State, 2011 WI 54 (Wis. 2011). “"— and Wis. Stat. § 227.11 (2)(a) — limiting an agency's rule-making authority to that "explicitly conferred on the agency by the legislature," not including any "statement or declaration of legislative intent, purpose, findings, or policy," or "the agency's general powers or…”
Racine Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. State Div. of Hearings & Appeals, 2006 WI 86 (Wis. 2006). “(d) Promulgate rules relating to the exercise of the administrator's and the division's powers and duties under this section.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.11(2) — 4 cases
Heyden v. Safeco Title Ins., 498 N.W.2d 905 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993).
Castle Corp. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 419 N.W.2d 709 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
Seider v. Musser, 585 N.W.2d 885 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
Douglas Balsewicz v. Christopher Blythe (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.11(2)(a) — 12 cases
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, 2021 WI 71 (Wis. 2021). “10 (2m) in context, we note that in Wis. Stat. § 227.11 (2)(a)3., the legislature used the word "specific.”
Seider v. O'connell, 2000 WI 76 (Wis. 2000). “" Wis. Stat. § 227.11 (2)(a). ¶ 22. The legislature long has recognized the potential for conflict between statutes and administrative rules, and it has authorized declaratory judgments as a means to test the validity of rules.”
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, 2021 WI 72 (Wis. 2021). “¶30 The Intervenors' resort to Wis. Stat. § 227.11 (2)(a) does not save its argument.”
Castle Corp. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 419 N.W.2d 709 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
Seider v. Musser, 585 N.W.2d 885 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.11(2)(b) — 1 case
Sonday v. Dave Kohel Agency, Inc., 2006 WI 92 (Wis. 2006). “§ 227.11(2)(b) confers rulemaking authority on the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing (Department) to effectuate the purpose of chapter 452.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.11(2)(c) — 1 case
Black River Country Bank v. Wisconsin Comm'r of Banking, 548 N.W.2d 114 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.11(l) — 1 case
Kuester v. Wisconsin Ret. Bd., 2004 WI App 10 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
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.