AJR136 would create Section 1m of Article I in the Wisconsin Constitution stating: “As a necessary part of a free society, the people have an individual and fundamental right to privacy.” The text is a standalone, broadly worded constitutional provision without definitions, exceptions, or enforcement language.
The change matters because it elevates privacy to a state constitutional right, potentially altering judicial review of statutes and administrative practices across policing, public-health surveillance, commercial data collection, and reproductive and medical privacy. The amendment hands state courts the authority — and responsibility — to define the contours, tests, and remedies that flow from this new fundamental right.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds Art. I, §1m to Wisconsin’s Constitution declaring an "individual and fundamental right to privacy" as essential to a free society. The resolution does not supply definitions, exceptions, or remedial mechanisms.
Who It Affects
State courts, state and local governments, law enforcement, businesses that collect or process personal data (healthcare, tech, data brokers), and individuals asserting privacy claims in Wisconsin courts.
Why It Matters
Labeling privacy "fundamental" will push Wisconsin courts toward heightened scrutiny of laws that burden privacy and create a new constitutional baseline that can supersede or reshape statutory privacy regimes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution inserts a short, emphatic sentence into the state constitution: privacy is an individual and fundamental right and a necessary part of a free society. The provision is textually minimal—no definitions, no exceptions for law enforcement or public health, and no hint about remedies—so its legal life will be created primarily through judicial interpretation.
Because the amendment frames privacy as "fundamental," Wisconsin courts will likely proceed to decide what level of scrutiny applies when laws or government actions limit privacy interests. Courts must also resolve whether the right protects only state action or can be invoked against private actors through state law, and whether it creates a private cause of action or only a defense to government conduct.In practice, the amendment can affect a wide range of subject matter: criminal search-and-seizure doctrine, warrants and surveillance law, reproductive and medical confidentiality, employer monitoring, government data collection, and commercial data practices such as biometric or location tracking.
Legislatures and agencies that regulate these areas will face new constitutional constraints and may need to revise statutes or procedures to survive heightened constitutional review.Because the amendment offers no exceptions, judges will need to craft balancing frameworks—deciding when public-safety, public-health, or administrative interests justify intrusions on privacy. The provision also includes an administrative clause about numbering conflicts; otherwise it leaves implementation to future legislative and judicial work.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution creates Article I, Section 1m stating: “As a necessary part of a free society, the people have an individual and fundamental right to privacy.”, The amendment text contains no scope language, exceptions, or enforcement provisions—courts will define what conduct it protects and what remedies are available.
Calling privacy “fundamental” signals that laws burdening privacy will face heightened judicial scrutiny rather than ordinary rational-basis review.
The resolution includes a procedural clause directing the Legislative Reference Bureau to resolve numbering conflicts and asks that the proposed amendment be referred to the next legislature and published for three months before the election.
Because it is a constitutional amendment, the measure ultimately requires adoption by two successive legislatures and ratification by the voters before it takes effect.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a concise fundamental-right-to-privacy clause
This section adds a single-sentence right to the state constitution without defining terms. That brevity gives courts wide interpretive authority: judges will have to decide what counts as a protected privacy interest (bodily, informational, decisional, spatial) and whether the clause protects against private actors, state actors, or both. The "fundamental" label will drive the standard of review and the intensity of constitutional oversight.
Administrative sequencing for conflicting constitutional provision numbers
This short administrative clause tasks the Legislative Reference Bureau with resolving numbering conflicts if later amendments create the same section number. Practically, it prevents technical numbering disputes from obstructing the text’s placement in the constitution, but it does not affect substantive interpretation or enforcement of the privacy right.
Procedural referral and publication for voter consideration
The resolution instructs referral to the next constitutionally chosen legislature and requires publication for three months before the subsequent general election, language tied to Wisconsin’s constitutional-amendment process. Those mechanics are procedural prerequisites to voter consideration and do not define the right’s content or remedies.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Privacy across all five countries.
Explore Privacy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Individuals asserting privacy claims — The amendment gives Wisconsin residents a constitutional basis to challenge government intrusions and possibly some state-sanctioned practices that were previously judged only under statutory or federal standards.
- Civil liberties and privacy organizations — Groups focused on surveillance, reproductive rights, and data protection can use the new clause as a platform for litigation and policy advocacy in state courts.
- Patients and people seeking reproductive or medical services — A state constitutional privacy right could strengthen protection of medical decision-making and confidentiality against state regulation or disclosure.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local governments — Agencies and law enforcement may need to change surveillance practices, warrant procedures, data-collection programs, and record-retention policies to withstand heightened constitutional review, increasing administrative and litigation costs.
- Businesses that collect personal data (healthcare providers, tech platforms, data brokers) — Companies may face tougher state-level limits on data collection, retention, and disclosure, and greater exposure to litigation or regulatory restrictions.
- Judicial system and defense counsel — Courts will see novel privacy claims and complex doctrinal development; public defenders, prosecutors, and judges will have to litigate foundational questions about scope, tests, and remedies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is classic: protect individual privacy as a fundamental value and risk constraining the state’s ability to pursue public-safety, public-health, or administrative objectives that sometimes require intrusive collection or use of information; or preserve governmental flexibility and leave privacy protections primarily to statutes, which are easier to tailor but also easier to alter. This amendment favors robust, judicially enforceable privacy protections, but it forces judges and policymakers to answer hard questions about workable exceptions and the legal tools needed to reconcile competing public interests.
The amendment’s breadth is both its strength and its central practical challenge. Because the text is intentionally sparse, Wisconsin courts will create the doctrinal architecture: what privacy interests are protected, what tests apply, what remedies are available, and whether there are categorical exceptions (for example, to prevent child abuse or to enable public-health surveillance).
That judicial lawmaking phase could produce unpredictable outcomes and a wave of litigation as parties test the right across different fact patterns.
Another unresolved issue is the clause’s reach against private actors. State constitutions sometimes support private causes of action or inform statutory interpretation, but this amendment does not state whether it displaces statutes that regulate private conduct or creates standalone rights enforceable in civil courts.
The lack of clarity could create tension between the legislature’s regulatory authority and judicially enforced constitutional protections. Finally, the amendment will interact with federal constitutional law: state courts may choose standards that diverge from federal precedent, producing potential conflicts but also avenues for stronger state protections; the amendment does not alter federal supremacy where federal law applies.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.