MADISON, Wisconsin — On Thursday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court convened to discuss a significant case regarding the constitutionality of a Republican-led legislative committee’s decision to reject a state agency rule aimed at prohibiting “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ individuals. This case emerges amid a broader national discourse on LGBTQ+ rights and is part of a strategy by the Democratic governor, who has consistently vetoed Republican initiatives aimed at regulating transgender athletes in high school, thereby attempting to limit the influence of the GOP-led Legislature.
**Defining Conversion Therapy**
Often referred to as “conversion therapy,” this controversial practice seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity through therapeutic means. This practice has been widely discredited by the medical community and has been outlawed in 20 states, in addition to various localities throughout Wisconsin. Since April 2024, the state’s professional licensing board for therapists has classified conversion therapy as unprofessional conduct. Advocates for the ban want to make it illegal for mental health providers in Wisconsin to counsel clients with the objective of altering their sexual orientation or gender identity. Abigail Swetz, executive director of Fair Wisconsin, the only statewide organization focused on LGBTQ+ rights and political advocacy, noted that reports of conversion therapy practices have surfaced statewide. However, precise statistics on its prevalence are challenging to obtain, she added. Should a ban be enacted, it would generate data on licensed practitioners but would not encompass conversion attempts conducted by religious establishments.
**Current Developments in Wisconsin**
The proposed regulation against conversion therapy has faced rejection from the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules, a powerful legislative body largely dominated by Republicans, on two occasions. The ongoing case, which is currently before the liberal-majority Wisconsin Supreme Court, will ascertain whether this ban can proceed. The court will also evaluate the extent of the legislative committee’s authority in obstructing various state regulations during the tenure of Democratic Governor Tony Evers. The lawsuit filed by Evers challenges two specific votes from the legislative committee, one of which pertains directly to the conversion therapy ban and the other regarding the state’s commercial building standards update. Republican legislators supporting the suspension of the conversion therapy ban argue that their concern lies not with the policy per se but with the authority granted to the licensing board. Since 2020, Governor Evers has been working towards implementing this ban, but legislative obstructions have thwarted its enforcement.
**Justices’ Hearings and Concerns**
During the hearings, Justice Jill Karofsky, identified the conversion therapy rule’s implications, describing the practice as “beyond horrific,” emphasizing the tangible risks to individuals’ well-being. Other justices concentrated on the division of authority between the Legislature and the governor regarding administrative rules. Misha Tseytlin, the attorney representing the Legislature, invoked decades of legal precedent supporting the committee’s authority, including a 1992 ruling. He contended that challenging this precedent would create significant instability. In contrast, Evers argued that by impeding this rule, the legislative committee has assumed powers constitutionally designated for the governor, claiming that the 1992 ruling contradicts constitutional norms and has proven impractical.
**Wider Implications Beyond Conversion Therapy**
The ban on conversion therapy is just one among several regulations stalled by the legislative committee, which also involves issues concerning environmental regulations, vaccination mandates, and public health policies. In his lawsuit, Evers alleges that the panel is effectively executing an unconstitutional “legislative veto.” Previously, the court accepted Evers’ stance on another matter, deeming that a different legislative committee unlawfully obstructed the state’s Department of Natural Resources from funding a land stewardship initiative. The regulation-related aspects were separately deliberated in Thursday’s hearing. The court, held by a narrow 4-3 liberal majority, is expected to deliver an official ruling in the upcoming months.
