MADISON, Wis. (AP) 鈥� The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday over whether a Republican-controlled legislative committee鈥檚 rejection of a state agency rule that would of 鈥渃onversion therapy鈥� for LGBTQ+ people was unconstitutional.
The challenge comes amid the over LGBTQ+ rights. It is also part of a broader effort by the Democratic governor, who has targeting transgender high school athletes, to rein in the power of the GOP-controlled Legislature.
Here are things to know about the case:
What is 鈥渃onversion therapy鈥�?
So-called "conversion therapy" is the scientifically discredited practice of using therapy to 鈥渃onvert鈥� LGBTQ people to heterosexuality or traditional gender expectations.
The practice has been banned in 20 states and in more than a dozen communities across Wisconsin. Since April 2024, the Wisconsin professional licensing board for therapists, counselors and social workers has labeled 鈥渃onversion therapy鈥� as unprofessional conduct.
Advocates seeking to ban the practice want to forbid mental health professionals in the state from counseling clients with the goal of changing their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Fair Wisconsin, the only statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights and political advocacy organization, has heard about 鈥渃onversion therapy鈥� happening across the state, said the group's executive director Abigail Swetz.
However, accurate data about how often it is happening is hard to come by, she said. There would be some data if the ban is enacted and the state is able to take action against licensed practitioners, but that wouldn't include attempts at 鈥渃onversion therapy鈥� made by religious institutions, Swetz said.
What is happening in Wisconsin?
The provision barring 鈥渃onversion therapy鈥� in Wisconsin has been by the Legislature鈥檚 powerful Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules 鈥� a Republican-controlled panel in charge of approving state agency regulations.
The case before the liberal-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court will determine whether the ban survives. The court will also determine if that legislative committee has been overreaching its authority in blocking a variety of other state regulations during Democratic Gov. Tony Evers' administration.
brought by Evers targets two votes by the joint committee. One deals with the Department of Safety and Professional Services' 鈥渃onversion therapy鈥� ban. The other vote blocked an update to the state's commercial building standards.
Republicans who supported suspending the 鈥渃onversion therapy鈥� ban have insisted the issue isn鈥檛 the policy itself, but whether the licensing board had the authority to take the action it did.
Evers has been trying since 2020 to get the ban enacted, but the Legislature has stopped it from going into effect.
Justices question how far legislative power goes
Liberal Justice Jill Karofsky focused on the 鈥渃onversion therapy鈥� rule, calling the practice 鈥渂eyond horrific.鈥�
鈥淭here are real lives that are at risk here,鈥� she said. 鈥淭his is hurting people.鈥�
Other justices focused on whether the Legislature or the governor has the power to issue administrative rules.
The Legislature's attorney Misha Tseytlin said decades of precedent are on his side, including a 1992 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling upholding the Legislature鈥檚 right to suspend state agency rules. Overturning that ruling would be deeply disruptive, he argued.
Evers, in arguing that the ruling should be overturned, said in court filings that by blocking the rule, the legislative committee is taking over powers that the state constitution assigns to the governor. The 1992 ruling conflicts with the constitution and has 鈥減roved unworkable,鈥� Evers said.
Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley said the state constitution clearly gives the power to the Legislature.
鈥淣owhere do I see that the people ever consented to be governed by an administrative state instead of their representatives in the Legislature,鈥� she said.
The issue goes beyond 鈥渃onversion therapy鈥�
The 鈥渃onversion therapy鈥� ban is one of several rules that have been blocked by the legislative committee. Others pertain to environmental regulations, vaccine requirements and public health protections.
Evers argues in the lawsuit that the panel has effectively been exercising an unconstitutional 鈥渓egislative veto.鈥�
The court in one issue brought in the lawsuit, ruling 6-1 in July that another legislative committee was illegally preventing the state Department of Natural Resources from spending money on a land stewardship program.
The issue related to state regulations was broken out and heard Thursday.
The court, controlled 4-3 by liberal justices, will issue a written ruling in the coming months.
Scott Bauer, The Associated Press
