977 N.W.2d 342
Wis.2022Background
- Kohler proposed an 18‑hole golf course adjacent to Kohler‑Andrae State Park; DNR began a master‑planning process and recommended a land exchange with Kohler.
- The Natural Resources Board approved removing a 4.59‑acre parcel from park boundaries and conveying that parcel (plus a 1.88‑acre easement) to Kohler in exchange for other land.
- Friends of the Black River Forest and Claudia Bricks (the Friends) petitioned under Wis. Stat. ch. 227, alleging recreational, aesthetic, conservational, traffic/noise, and procedural injuries from the land swap.
- The Sheboygan County circuit court dismissed for lack of standing, finding the alleged harms were not direct results of the land transfer; the court of appeals reversed.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals: it assumed (without deciding) the Friends satisfied injury‑in‑fact but held the statutes and administrative rules the Friends cited do not protect, recognize, or regulate the asserted interests and therefore do not confer ch. 227 standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the Friends have standing under Wis. Stat. §§ 227.52–227.53 to challenge the Board's land exchange? | Friends: their members suffer concrete recreational/aesthetic/conservational and procedural injuries traceable to the land swap. | Kohler/DNR: Friends lack injury‑in‑fact and do not assert interests protected by the statutes/rules cited. | No standing. Court assumed injury‑in‑fact but held the Friends failed to identify a statute or rule that protects/recognizes/regulates their asserted interests. |
| Is the federal "zone‑of‑interests" label appropriate for Wisconsin ch. 227 standing? | Friends invoked prior cases using the zone‑of‑interests language. | DNR/Kohler: that label is not grounded in ch. 227's text. | Court: abandons the misleading label; reiterates Wisconsin test requires an injury to an interest the law "recognizes or seeks to regulate or protect." Substance preserved but analysis must be text‑driven. |
| Do Wis. Stat. §§ 27.01, 23.11, 23.15 or Wis. Admin. Code chs. NR 1 & NR 44 (NR 1.47, NR 44.04) confer a legally protected interest enabling standing? | Friends: statutes/rules embody park‑conservation and public‑participation protections that cover their interests. | DNR/Kohler: § 27.01 and § 23.11 are general policy statements; § 23.15 and NR 1.47 lack substantive criteria or procedural rights for private challengers; NR 44 procedural claims not pleaded as denial of participation. | Held: None of the cited statutes/regulations supply the requisite legally protected, recognized, or regulated interests for ch. 227 standing in this case. |
| Did the court of appeals correctly reverse the circuit court and permit review? | Friends urged appellate decision was correct. | Kohler/DNR urged review and reversal. | Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated dismissal for lack of standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waste Mgmt. of Wis., Inc. v. DNR, 144 Wis. 2d 499 (Wis. 1988) (articulating Wisconsin requirement that injury be to an interest the law recognizes or seeks to regulate or protect)
- Foley‑Ciccantelli v. Bishop's Grove Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 333 Wis. 2d 402 (Wis. 2011) (standing requires an interest protected by statute or constitution)
- Wisconsin's Env't Decade, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wis., 69 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 1975) (early framing of two‑part standing test for administrative review)
- Fox v. Dep't of Health & Social Servs., 112 Wis. 2d 514 (Wis. 1983) (environmental/recreational injuries confer standing only if caused by change in physical environment)
- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (U.S. 2014) (clarifying zone‑of‑interests inquiry as a statutory‑interpretation question)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (constitutional injury‑in‑fact principle)
- Chenequa Land Conservancy, Inc. v. Village of Hartland, 275 Wis. 2d 533 (Ct. App. 2004) (statute authorizing land sale without substantive criteria does not confer standing for bidders or public to challenge sales)
- Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club v. DHSS, 130 Wis. 2d 56 (Wis. 1986) (recognizing aesthetic, conservational, recreational interests may confer standing when tied to physical environmental change)
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation principles; interpret statutes in context)