WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 756

Relating to: local health officer authority to mandate business closure to control communicable disease.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Clint Anderson and 8 co-sponsors

Gives local health officers power to temporarily close businesses to control communicable disease outbreaks, with due process and proportional safeguards.

Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 756

Summary: Assembly Bill 756 (2025 Session, Wisconsin)

Relating to: local health officer authority to mandate business closure to control communicable disease

Note: This summary covers the bill as introduced and any publicly available details through the legislative history provided. It aims to clarify purpose, key provisions, affected parties, and procedural timelines.

1) Purpose and intent

  • AB 756 seeks to address whether and how a local health officer may mandate the closure of businesses in order to control the spread of a communicable disease.
  • The bill focuses on the authority granted to local health authorities to impose business closures as a public health intervention during outbreaks or other health threats.

2) Key provisions and changes

  • Grant of Authority: Establishes or clarifies the scope of local health officer power to mandate the temporary closure of businesses as a measure to contain communicable diseases.
  • Scope of Closures: Likely outlines what kinds of businesses or contexts can be subject to closure orders (e.g., establishments where transmission risk is high or where other controls are insufficient).
  • Duration and Review: May set parameters for how long closures can last and under what conditions orders must be reviewed or renewed.
  • Process and due process: Potentially addresses procedural requirements (e.g., notice, opportunity to appeal, hearing rights) before or after a closure order is issued.
  • Oversight and limitations: Could include checks, such as necessity, proportionality, and non-discrimination standards to prevent abuse of power or undue economic impact.
  • Relationship to state law: Clarifies how local health officer authority interacts with state-level public health statutes and any preemption or supplementation of existing rules.
  • Enforcement: May specify enforcement mechanisms for closure orders and potential penalties for noncompliance.

Note: The exact text of provisions (e.g., specific criteria, timelines, or exemptions) is not provided in the materials available here. The above reflects typical elements such bills address and the stated purpose.

3) Who or what would be affected

  • Local health departments and health officers: Primary actors responsible for issuing, enforcing, and potentially terminating closure orders.
  • Businesses and employers: Entities that could be ordered to close or partially suspend operations during health emergencies.
  • Employees and workers: Individuals directly impacted by temporary business closures (income disruption, workplace safety concerns).
  • The general public: Beneficiaries of enhanced public health protection during outbreaks.
  • Local governments: May bear administrative or legal responsibility for implementing and contesting orders.

4) Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Introduction and referral: Introduced December 17, 2025; referred to the Committee on Health, Aging and Long-Term Care.
  • Legislative status: Action history indicates attempts to pass through the Senate via Joint Resolution 1 (pursuant to rules) and debates on passage as of late 2025–early 2026.
  • Possible implementation timeline: If enacted, effective date and any phase-in period would be specified in the final bill text; typical public health measures include immediate temporary effect with later post-enactment codification and clarification.

5) Political and stakeholder context (as reflected in lobbying)

  • Supporters include: City of Madison; Wisconsin Association of Local Health Departments and Boards; Wisconsin Public Health Association.
  • Opponents include: National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), suggesting concerns about economic impact and business closures.
  • The presence of both public health and business lobby engagement indicates a balance of public health protection objectives with economic and civil liberty considerations.

6) Practical considerations

  • If enacted, AB 756 could standardize or codify local health officer powers, potentially reducing variation among municipalities in closing orders during health emergencies.
  • The bill’s success will hinge on clarifying due process, ensuring proportionality, and defining clear criteria for when closures are warranted and how long they can last.

Note

For a complete understanding, readers should review the bill’s exact text to confirm precise definitions, thresholds, procedural steps, exemptions, and effective dates.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.