SJR131 proposes a new Section 1m to Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution that reads: “As a necessary part of a free society, the people have an individual and fundamental right to privacy.” The resolution is procedural in form: it inserts that single declarative sentence and includes an administrative clause about numbering conflicting provisions.
If enacted through the constitutional-amendment process, the provision would become a state-level, fundamental constitutional right. The text on its face is short and unqualified, so its practical effect will come from how Wisconsin courts interpret “privacy” and “fundamental” — which areas of law are covered, what level of judicial scrutiny applies, and how existing statutes and administrative practices must change to comply.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds Article I, Section 1m to the Wisconsin Constitution with a one-sentence declaration that individuals have a fundamental right to privacy. The resolution contains no definitions, exceptions, enforcement language, or implementing rules; it also includes a housekeeping clause about numbering conflicts.
Who It Affects
Wisconsin courts and litigants, state and local governments, law enforcement agencies using surveillance or investigatory tools, healthcare providers, businesses that collect personal data, and anyone whose intimate or data-driven decisions are regulated by state law.
Why It Matters
Labeling privacy a fundamental constitutional right changes the legal framework: courts will determine whether statutes and government actions that infringe privacy must survive heightened judicial review. That will reshape litigation strategy, regulatory drafting, and compliance across public- and private-sector actors in fields from public safety to health care and digital services.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The amendment text is extremely concise: a single sentence proclaiming an individual, fundamental right to privacy. The resolution does not list categories of protected privacy interests, set standards of review, or create remedies; it simply elevates the concept of privacy into the state constitution.
That means the substantive contours of the right will emerge through judicial interpretation rather than legislative detail.
Because the proposal contains no definitions or exceptions, Wisconsin courts will be the primary architects of its scope. Judges will face baseline questions: does the right cover informational privacy (data collection and processing), bodily and medical privacy, decisional autonomy (medical and reproductive decisions), location tracking, or other categories?
The court will also need to decide whether to treat privacy as a “fundamental” right that triggers strict scrutiny for state intrusions or some other heightened standard.Practically, existing statutes, regulatory programs, and routine government practices will be tested against the new constitutional text: warrantless searches, license or permitting conditions that collect personal data, disclosure requirements, and surveillance programs could all prompt constitutional challenges. Because the amendment lacks implementing rules, legislators and agencies will face pressure to clarify statutory exceptions and procedural safeguards once courts start resolving disputes.The resolution also contains narrow procedural language directing publication and sequencing if numbering conflicts arise and refers the proposed amendment to the next legislature and, ultimately, to voters as required for constitutional change.
Those procedural steps do not alter the substance but affect the timetable for when courts and actors will need to adapt.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 1m inserts one sentence into the constitution: “As a necessary part of a free society, the people have an individual and fundamental right to privacy.”, The resolution contains no definitions, exceptions, enforcement provisions, or standards of review—scope and remedies are left entirely to judicial interpretation and future legislation.
Section 2 provides a technical rule: if another ratified amendment creates a numbering conflict, the Legislative Reference Bureau will resolve sequencing and numbering.
The joint resolution directs that the proposed amendment be referred to the next legislature and published for three months before the next general election, a procedural step toward eventual voter consideration.
As the Legislative Reference Bureau notes in the text, a constitutional amendment must be adopted by two successive legislatures and ratified by the people before it takes effect; this resolution begins that process by proposing the language to the 2025–2026 legislature.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Declaration of a fundamental, individual right to privacy
This provision contains the operative text. It elevates “privacy” to constitutional status but does not specify categories, limits, or enforcement mechanisms. The practical effect will depend on how Wisconsin courts read the words “individual,” “fundamental,” and “privacy” in concrete disputes—decisions that will determine whether state actions are evaluated under strict scrutiny or another standard and which government practices must be justified or modified.
Numbering and sequencing of conflicting amendments
A narrow administrative clause directs the Legislative Reference Bureau to resolve numbering conflicts if another ratified amendment uses the same section number. This avoids technical drafting problems if multiple amendments pass in overlapping timeframes, but it does not affect substantive interpretation or application of the privacy provision.
Procedural referral to the next legislature and voter notice
The resolution sends the proposed amendment to the legislature to be elected at the next general election and requires publication for three months prior to that election. These are procedural prerequisites in Wisconsin’s amendment process; they set the administrative path toward a second legislative vote and eventual voter ratification, which are necessary for the text to become part of the constitution.
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: People bringing challenges to government searches, compelled disclosures, or intrusive data collection would have a direct constitutional hook for relief, giving private litigants and public-interest plaintiffs a stronger basis to challenge state action.
- Patients and reproductive-health recipients: Courts could read the provision to protect bodily and medical decisionmaking, potentially reinforcing privacy protections around medical records, treatment decisions, and reproductive choices under state constitutional law.
- Digital-privacy advocates and consumers: Individuals and advocacy groups focused on data protection can use the new provision to press for limits on government and private-sector data collection, retention, and surveillance practices.
- Civil-rights and public-interest organizations: These groups will gain a clearer constitutional argument for broadening privacy protections and challenging statutes or programs that rely on intrusive information-gathering.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local governments: Officials who design and operate criminal investigations, licensing regimes, public-health programs, and administrative data systems may face tighter constitutional constraints and will likely need to justify privacy intrusions under a higher standard.
- Law enforcement and public-safety agencies: Police and investigators that rely on location tracking, cell-site data, warrantless surveillance, or broad information requests may encounter new evidentiary and procedural hurdles and could need legislative or technical changes to continue certain practices.
- Businesses that collect personal data (healthcare, tech platforms, employers): Private actors could face increased litigation risk, demands for data-minimization, and pressure for stronger contractual or technical safeguards if courts extend the privacy right to informational practices involving state action or regulatory enforcement.
- Courts and agencies: The judiciary will absorb early waves of constitutional litigation to define scope and standards, and administrative agencies will face work to revise rules and guidance; both may need additional resources to handle increased caseloads and regulatory restructuring.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The proposal pits the goal of robust, judicially enforceable privacy protections against the need for government flexibility in policing, public health, and regulation; giving courts broad authority to define privacy can protect individuals from intrusive state or private practices, but it can also constrain legitimate government functions and create uncertainty that only time and litigation can resolve.
The amendment’s brevity is both its power and its primary challenge. A constitutional declaration without definitions hands the interpretive job to judges; that can expand protections in ways proponents want, but it also creates legal uncertainty for years as courts calibrate the right’s reach.
Practitioners will litigate over core issues—what kinds of interests qualify as “privacy,” whether corporations can assert privacy protections, and whether the right covers state-facilitated private-sector data uses.
Another tension concerns standards of review. Labeling the right “fundamental” signals heightened scrutiny, but the resolution does not prescribe a test.
Courts will decide whether to apply strict scrutiny to state regulations that infringe privacy, to develop an intermediate test, or to adapt existing doctrinal frameworks. That choice determines how easy or difficult it will be for government programs to survive constitutional challenge.
Finally, the amendment interacts awkwardly with competing public interests—public safety, health emergencies, and regulatory disclosure requirements—which the legislature or courts will have to reconcile case by case, potentially creating compliance costs and temporary gaps in legal clarity.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.