How the Rights of Nature Movement is Shaping Wisconsin Law

An exploration of the growing legal battle in Wisconsin over the "Rights of Nature" movement.

---

Published May 30th, 2026

Written by Emily Tschudy

For decades, the Rights of Nature movement has been slowly forming a web between cultural, legal, political and ethical worldviews. The Rights of Nature approach elevates natural entities to a status of legal personhood and grants nature the right to not simply exist, but to flourish. Furthermore, the basis for these rights are derived from nature’s intrinsic value, rather than the societal consequences of pollution or overuse — alternate frameworks commonly used to substantiate environmental policy. This approach is also known as ecocentrism, which places the environment at the center of consideration and recognizes its value beyond human use.

In recent years, the Rights of Nature perspective has spread into various Wisconsin legislation proposals, both supportive and opposing. In 2023, Milwaukee County established a place for Rights of Nature legislation in Wisconsin through their resolution aimed at protecting local bodies of water. Rights of Nature legislation is also widely used in Tribal Law, as ecocentrism is primarily rooted in indigenous ideology. In 2020, the Menominee Tribe adopted a resolution recognizing rights of the Menominee River. This past year, numerous environmental organizations aligned to create a proposal which would grant Devil’s Lake State Park a series of rights, including the right to “naturally exist, flourish, regenerate, and evolve.” Republican lawmakers of the state pushed back by proposing their own bill, aiming to completely preempt Rights of Nature ordinances across the state. In their Co-sponsorship Memorandum, Rep. Joey Goeben and Sen. Steve Nass called these efforts a “growing trend,” and emphasized their goal to “reaffirm that rights belong to people, not nature.” While this proposal was ultimately vetoed by Governor Tony Evers, the language used is revealing of a broader conflict; the conflict between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism as legal strategies.

In an anthropocentric view, the law exists for the protection and advancement of human interests. Apprehension to granting nature rights comes in various forms. One way this manifests is through political ideology, such as the one offered by Republican politicians previously mentioned. This concern is often rooted in the fear that human liberties will be undermined by the strengthened status of nature. What many fail to realize is ecocentrism does not erase, or even undermine, the importance of people. Instead, it equally recognizes the intrinsic value of living beings and natural systems. Ecocentrism can ultimately allow states to protect future interests by safeguarding against environmentally harmful development bringing eventual burdensome financial consequences that we have seen time and time again. This is especially important regarding the health of local waters, as once vibrant lakes and rivers have become the subject of tireless communal efforts towards restoration. 

A significant amount of criticism also exists in legal scholarship. For example, in their article, “Does Nature Need Rights?”  legal scholars Lael Weis and Robert Mullins questioned the necessity and efficiency of Rights of Nature legislation, instead suggesting this approach can be redundant. Reasoning behind this perspective could be supported by the fact that we have existing policies to protect Devil’s Lake such as the Wisconsin Public Trust Doctrine and the DNR. However, the Devils Lake Rights of Nature proposal provides a novel feature. This distinct feature empowers people to take on a more active role in environmental governance as it states, “Any individual may file a legal action, or intervene in any legal action, in the name of Devil’s Lake State Park as the real party in interest, to enforce the provisions of this section.” Moreover, “the party conducting the activity alleged to be in violation of sub. (2) bears the burden of proving that no violation exists.” This reversed orientation of burden is unusual to typical civil law, in which it is the job of the plaintiff to prove harm. This rebalancing of power enables citizens, developers and government officials alike to more cautiously consider societal advancements and long term impact. Additionally, this provision can become an avenue for strengthening the bond between community members and their natural environment, upholding the very philosophy of interconnectedness that Rights of Nature promotes.

The Rights of Nature Debate in Wisconsin is more than a simple policy disagreement, it's a question of who and what is prioritized in the law. As of today, the Devil’s Lake bill has not yet passed the full legislative process and still faces strong Republican opposition. Until then, the discourse surrounding this bill will likely have lasting impacts on the future of Rights of Nature in Wisconsin. Despite the outcome, the health of Devil's Lake remains inseparable from the health of the communities surrounding it. A legal approach that recognizes this interdependence is not a radical departure from human interests but instead a fortified expression of them. On a broader scale, this debate is an opportunity to reframe the issue of balancing nature against society into building a legal framework that can diligently protect those we share Earth with.

---