Madison, Wisconsin.In a decision that gives the governor more authority over how state laws are implemented, the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday gave the state permission to implement a ban on conversion therapy.
The court determined that the denial of a state agency regulation that would have prohibited the practice of conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ individuals by a Republican-controlled legislative committee was unconstitutional. The ruling removes the Legislature’s ability to prevent the governor’s office from enacting rules that are legally binding, with far-reaching implications that go well beyond the conversion therapy controversy.
The liberal-controlled court’s 4-3 decision coincides with the national struggle for LGBTQ+ rights. Additionally, it is a component of the Democratic governor’s larger endeavor to limit the authority of the Republican-controlled Legislature.
Conversion therapy: what is it?
The scientifically debunked practice of utilizing therapy to convert LGBTQ+ individuals to heterosexuality or traditional gender norms is known as conversion therapy.
The LGBTQ+ rights think tank Movement Advancement Project claims that 23 states and the District of Columbia have outlawed the practice. Additionally, it is prohibited in over a dozen Wisconsin communities.
Proponents of the practice’s prohibition aim to prohibit mental health practitioners in the state from offering customers counseling aimed at altering their gender identification or sexual orientation.
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to consider a case from Colorado on the enforcement of state and local laws against conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ youth.
What’s going on in Wisconsin?
Conversion therapy has been classified as unprofessional behavior by the Wisconsin Professional Licensing Board for Therapists, Counselors, and Social Workers since April 2024.
However, the provision has been blocked twice by the powerful Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules, a Republican-controlled council that reviews and approves state agency regulations.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided that during Democratic Governor Tony Evers’ administration, the committee had been abusing its power by obstructing numerous other state regulations. Although the exact date of the conversion therapy ban’s implementation is unknown, that opens the door for it to be implemented.
Republicans who backed lifting the restriction on conversion therapy have maintained that the question is not whether the policy is wrong, but rather whether the licensing board had the right to act as it did.
Evers has been advocating for the ban since 2020, but the Legislature has prevented it from taking effect.
According to Evers, the decision is extremely significant because it would prevent a few politicians from holding rules hostage without providing an explanation or taking any action, which is producing a stalemate in state government.
However, the verdict grants Evers unrestricted authority to make decrees without legislative approval that will violate residents’ rights, according to Republican Sen. Steve Nass, co-chair of the relevant legislative committee.
A verdict that weakens legislative power
The lawyer for the Legislature contended that the Legislature’s authority to suspend state agency rules was supported by decades of precedent, including a 1992 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision.
Evers contended that by obstructing the rule, the legislative committee is exercising an unlawful legislative veto and assuming authority that the state constitution grants the governor.
The Supreme Court concurred.
The Legislature must pass both chambers of the Legislature before it can be given to the governor, according to the state constitution. The court determined that the Legislature was not complying with this obligation.
Chief Justice Jill Karofsky wrote the majority opinion, arguing that the Legislature was unlawfully changing the legal rights and responsibilities of the executive branch and the people of Wisconsin. The three other liberal judges of the court joined her.
Conservatives criticize the decision.
According to conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley, the decision permits the executive branch to enact laws without restraint or oversight. In their dissenting opinions, she and colleague conservative Justice Annette Ziegler claimed that the decision holds the Legislature to a higher legal standard and gives the executive branch excessive power.
According to Bradley, progressives prefer to demonstrate against monarchs unless it is their own fault.
In his dissenting opinion, Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn claimed that the court’s decision lacked legal insight and left more problems than it answered.
Hagedorn favored a more limited decision that would have just ruled that the legislative committee’s indefinite objection to a building code rule was unlawful.
The problem extends beyond conversion therapy.
The legislative committee has banned a number of regulations, including the prohibition on conversion treatment. Others deal with public health safeguards, vaccination mandates, and environmental restrictions.
Environmental organizations applauded the decision.
According to Wilkin Gibart, executive director of Midwest Environmental Advocates, the ruling will stop a few lawmakers from obstructing the implementation of environmental measures that the Legislature has approved and signed into law.
Another legislative committee was unlawfully preventing the state Department of Natural Resources from awarding grants to local governments and nongovernmental organizations for environmental projects under the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program, the court ruled 6-1 last year, siding with Eversin on one of the lawsuit’s issues.
