
Wisconsin Supreme Court clears the way for a conversion therapy ban to be enacted
The court ruled that a Republican-controlled legislative committee's rejection of a state agency rule that would ban the practice of conversion therapy for LGBTQ people was unconstitutional. The decision, which has a broad impact far beyond the conversion therapy issue, takes power away from the Legislature to block the enactment of rules by the governor's office that carry the force of law.
The 4-3 ruling from the liberal-controlled court comes amid the national battle over LGBTQ+ rights. It is also part of a broader effort by the Democratic governor, who has vetoed Republican bills targeting transgender high school athletes, to rein in the power of the GOP-controlled Legislature.
What is conversion therapy?
What is known as conversion therapy is the scientifically discredited practice of using therapy to "convert" LGBTQ people to heterosexuality or traditional gender expectations.
The practice has been banned in 23 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ rights think tank. It is also banned in more than a dozen communities across Wisconsin. Since April 2024, the Wisconsin professional licensing board for therapists, counselors and social workers has labeled conversion therapy 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.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in March to hear a Colorado case about whether state and local governments can enforce laws banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children.
What is happening in Wisconsin?
The provision barring conversion therapy in Wisconsin has been blocked twice by the Legislature's powerful Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules — a Republican-controlled panel in charge of approving state agency regulations.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling means the conversion therapy ban can be enacted. The court ruled that the legislative committee has been overreaching its authority in blocking a variety of other state regulations during Democratic Gov. Tony Evers' administration.
The lawsuit brought by Evers targeted two votes by the joint committee. One deals with the Department of Safety and Professional Services' conversion therapy ban. The other vote blocked an update to the state's commercial building standards.
Republicans who supported suspending the conversion therapy ban have insisted the issue isn't 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.
Evers and legislative leaders did not immediately respond to messages seeking reaction to the ruling.
Legislative power weakened by ruling
The Legislature's attorney argued that decades of precedent backed up their argument, including a 1992 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling upholding the Legislature's right to suspend state agency rules.
Evers argued that by blocking the rule, the legislative committee is taking over powers that the state constitution assigns to the governor and exercising an unconstitutional "legislative veto."
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed with Evers.
The court found that the Legislature was violating the state constitution's requirement that any laws pass both houses of the Legislature and be presented to the governor.
Instead, in this case the Legislature was illegally taking "action that alters the legal rights and duties of the executive branch and the people of Wisconsin," Chief Justice Jill Karofsky wrote for the majority. She was joined by the court's three other liberal justices.
Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, in a dissent, said the court's ruling is "devoid of legal analysis and raises more questions than it answers."
Hagedorn argued for a more narrow ruling that would have only declared unconstitutional the legislative committee's indefinite objection to a building code rule.
Fellow conservative justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley also dissented, saying the ruling shifts too much power to the executive branch and holds the Legislature to a higher legal standard.
Bradley said the ruling "lets the executive branch exercise lawmaking power unfettered and unchecked."
The issue goes beyond conversion therapy
The conversion therapy 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.
Environmental groups hailed the ruling.
The decision will prevent a small number of lawmakers from blocking the enactment of environmental protections passed by the Legislature and signed into law, said Wilkin Gibart, executive director of Midwest Environmental Advocates.
The court previously sided with Evers in one issue brought in the lawsuit, ruling 6-1 last year that another legislative committee was illegally preventing the state Department of Natural Resources from funding grants to local governments and nongovernmental organizations for environmental projects under the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
With their megabill signed into law, Republicans seek to buck midterm history: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, Steve Kornacki dives into recent midterm history to show what Republicans are up against as they seek to maintain their House majority next year. Plus, Bridget Bowman explores why so many independents are running for statewide office. — Adam Wollner With their megabill signed into law, Republicans seek to buck midterm history As it made its way through Congress, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" received consistently low marks from the public. This has fed Democratic optimism as the 2026 midterm playing field begins to take shape. Previous unpopular legislative pushes from presidents are being invoked, from Bill Clinton's 1993 tax hike to Barack Obama's health-care overhaul in 2010 to the Donald Trump-led GOP's unsuccessful Obamacare repeal attempt in 2017. All of these efforts preceded dire midterm losses by the party that controlled the White House, an outcome Democrats believe is on the table now. Republicans, meanwhile, face the task of either reversing voters' views of the Trump megabill or shifting the focus away from it and onto other issues where they are better positioned politically. And they must do this with the weight of midterm history stacked against them. This is particularly stark when it comes to the House, where Republicans have just 220 seats. That means that a net loss of just three would cost them their majority next year. And here's how the president's party has fared over the last 15 midterms: Note that in only two cases did the White House party manage to pick up House seats. And both come with a ready explanation. When Clinton's Democrats gained five seats in 1998, it coincided with the GOP's wildly unpopular impeachment effort, which fomented a backlash and drove up the president's approval rating (68% in the exit poll). And the Republicans' gain of eight seats in 2002 came just a year after 9/11, when public support for President George W. Bush remained unusually strong and deep. There were also minimal losses suffered by Republicans in 1986 and 1990, although those can be chalked up in large part to how diminished the House GOP ranks already were heading into those midterms. Simply put, there just weren't that many seats left for Republicans to lose in those years. So, is there anything here Trump's GOP can take solace from now? Ironically, it's the most recent entry on the list. In 2022, Joe Biden's approval rating was barely at 40%, a level that has often correlated with heavy midterm losses. And Biden and his party were also saddled with an unpopular legislative achievement, the Inflation Reduction Act. But despite forecasts of a bloodbath, Democrats lost only a net of nine House seats, coming far closer to retaining their majority than anyone had expected. It's a matter of debate what exactly caused this, but the bottom line is that a sizable number of voters with negative views of Biden and his agenda nonetheless voted for Democratic candidates. Some combination of negative views of Trump, the Republican Party and individual Republican candidates likely played a role. Trump's current approval rating is at 46.4%, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. That's four points better than Biden's was on Election Day 2022 and also three points above where Trump himself was during his first midterm in 2018, when his party lost 41 House seats. Historically speaking, though, it's still a perilous place for an incumbent to be. While Republicans certainly hope that Trump can maintain and even improve on his current standing, their bigger hope may lie in our latest NBC News Decision Desk poll, which found that 57% of Americans have a negative view of the Democratic Party. If they can push that number even higher, it could offer them their best — and maybe only — chance at defying midterm history. Dan Osborn is the latest independent to launch a statewide run By Bridget Bowman Dan Osborn, a mechanic and Navy veteran, is launching another run for Senate in Nebraska, becoming the latest candidate to run for statewide office who is looking to capitalize on voters' disdain for both parties. 'I want to show people that we can get back to working with a government that's by and for the people and not for the 1% and the corporations,' Osborn said in an interview with NBC News ahead of his launch on Tuesday. Republicans have already signaled they plan to replicate the playbook they used against Osborn last year and paint him as a Democrat masquerading as an independent. Osborn made a surprisingly competitive run against GOP Sen. Deb Fischer last year, losing by 7 points as Trump carried Nebraska by 20 points. But Osborn contends he is a 'lifelong independent,' not having registered to vote with either party and describing himself as fiscally conservative and more socially liberal. He could have a slightly easier time campaigning without a party label than other independent Senate candidates running in deeply Republican states who have clearer, and recent, ties to the Democratic Party. In Mississippi, Ty Pinkins left the Democratic Party to challenge GOP Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith as an independent in 2026. But he has run for office multiple times as a Democrat, including an unsuccessful race last year against GOP Sen. Roger Wicker. In Idaho, former state Rep. Todd Achilles, another Democrat-turned-independent, is running against Republican Senate Jim Risch. And in South Dakota, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Brian Bengs launched an independent bid against GOP Sen. Mike Rounds after losing a 2022 Senate race as a Democrat. This new wave of independent Senate campaigns underscore just how toxic the Democratic brand has become in ruby red states. Bengs, for example, told The New York Times that voters 'ruled out any possibility of supporting me because the letter 'D' was beside my name.' Meanwhile, Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, a longtime Democrat, is running as a third-party candidate for governor of battleground Michigan. But recent history shows other independent candidates have struggled to overcome the partisan bent of their states or compete against the two major parties. The last time voters sent a new independent candidate to the Senate was in 2012, when Maine's Angus King won his first term, and that was after he had served as the state's governor. King and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., have easily won re-election since their first campaigns and caucus with Democrats. There are currently no independent governors. Still, these candidates believe they have an opening among voters who have negative views of Republicans and Democrats. As Duggan recently told NBC News, 'Every place I go, the depth of anger at the two parties runs deep.'


Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
MTG moves to make weather modification a felony
By Firebrand Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is moving to make weather modification a felony offense in the wake of the tragic Texas floods. 'Our air, our precipitation, our weather and our sunshine are something that we all share, and certain special groups or companies should not be controlling that,' she told the Daily Mail in a phone call Tuesday. Just days before the Georgia congresswoman posted on X she had introduced a bill 'that prohibits the injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere for the express purpose of altering weather, temperature, climate, or sunlight intensity.' Her post came just a day after catastrophic flash floods rushed through central Texas, resulting in the deaths of more than 100 people as search and rescue efforts remain ongoing. Greene told the Daily Mail her bill and its timing have nothing to do with the floods, though she claimed questions remain about weather modification practices in Texas before the tragedy. 'This isn't something that just I came up with based on the horrible, tragic flooding that occurred in Texas ... I've been talking about this for a very long time,' she said. Multiple social media posts from the congresswoman dating to last year have consistently raised questions about human control over the weather. The Republican's bill would classify weather modification as a felony offense similar to a recent law signed into effect in Florida , which makes it a third-degree felony to modify the climate in the Sunshine State. Greene's legislation as of now has little chance of reaching the House floor for a vote since it has not even been assigned to a committee for a hearing or mark-up. Her measure is cosponsored by exactly one other member: Tennessee Republican Rep. Tim Burchett, who wrote in defense of Greene after she was accused of stirring conspiracies. 'Why are you mad at [Rep. Greene] for raising the question of "weather modification"? If it doesn't exist then what does it hurt?' he posted Tuesday morning. 'It's an issue that many Americans talk about, and it gets largely ignored and people that have been talking about this for years and years, they get called conspiracy theorists,' Greene told the Daily Mail. 'This is an extremely popular issue among Americans, and I've been looking into this for a very long time, and I'm happy to be leading the charge on it, because it really it's something that needs to be pushed to the forefront,' she added. Her alarming post about weather engineering came just before she published a heartfelt statement about the families impacted by the deadly Texas flooding. But not all Republicans are on the same page when it comes to weather modification. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz even shot down the idea that the practice is to blame for the deluge leading to the flash floods last week. 'To the best of my knowledge, there is zero evidence of anything related to anything like weather modification,' Cruz said at a press conference addressing the floods on Monday. 'Look, the internet can be a strange place,' the senator added. 'People can come up with all sorts of crazy theories.' According to the bill's text seen exclusively by the Daily Mail, the measure defines geoengineering or weather modification activity as 'any injection, release, emission, or dispersal of any chemical, chemical compound, substance, or apparatus into the atmosphere conducted for the express purpose of - producing changes in the composition or behavior of the atmosphere; affecting the temperature, weather, climate, or intensity of sunlight; or counteracting of mitigating climate change or climate systems.' Cloud seeding, for example, is a practice where aircraft release chemicals into the atmosphere so that clouds absorb them and subsequently drop rain. It is legal in most states, including Texas. Still, Greene was blasted by meteorologist Matthew Cappucci after her post, which he likened to 'idiocy.' 'It's not a political statement for me as a Harvard-degreed atmospheric scientist to say that elected representative Marjorie Taylor Green doesn't know what the hell she's talking about,' the D.C.-based weatherman responded to the Republican's post. 'She'd be equally qualified to fly a Boeing-737, practice nuclear medicine or train zebras,' he continued. 'Given my role in media, I'm not allowed to call anyone an idiot,' Cappucci continued. 'However, what I can — as a scientist — say is that Marjorie's mis-informed tweets regarding conspiracy theories/weather modification are commensurate with the level of education colloquially referred to as idiocy.' Greene pushed back on claims that weather issues are out of her lane by claiming it is a top issue for residents in her district. Greene has for years posted about the issues with weather modification. 'Yes they can control the weather,' she wrote in October 2024. 'It's ridiculous for anyone to lie and say it can't be done.'


Daily Mirror
4 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Musk drops Epstein files bombshell as he claims ex-White House chief on list
Elon Musk has dropped another bombshell amid his ongoing feud with the White House by claiming that Donald Trump ally and ex-White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon is named in the Epstein Files. Mr Musk claimed, without evidence, that Mr Bannon was in the Jeffrey Epstein files, in a reply shared on social media. His post on X/Twitter, was in response to Trump ally Roger Stone who questioned why former White House advisor Steve Bannon would meet with the notorious paedophile, Mr Musk said: "Bannon is in the Epstein files." Since being shared today, the post has been seen by an estimated 139,000 times on the social media platform. The tech billionaire has also previously claimed, without evidence, that Mr Trump is in the files. It comes after the Republican White House dashed the hopes of MAGA faithful with a statement that claimed there was no files regarding blackmail of senior political figures by the billionaire paedophile and added any suggestions that he did not commit suicide were unfounded. The spotlight has remained on the Trump administration after its current members said they had examined numerous documents related to the notorious sexual predator and claimed that anyone mentioned in any files would be brought to justice. Many loyal supporters of the US President expected him to release files containing damning evidence of a supposed list of clients connected to Epstein. Epstein's death in federal custody in 2019 while he awaited a second prosecution over sex trafficking of underage girls sparked numerous conspiracy theories online. His death was officially ruled as a suicide. But current members of the Trump administration raised the supposed links between Epstein and senior political figures during the campaign trail and during the early months of Mr Trump's second term. In an interview with Fox News earlier this year, Attorney General Pam Bondi specifically referred to the "Epstein client list" and told the interviewer she had it "on my desk." US Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt attempted to quell any speculation during a briefing with reporters yesterday, though many remain unconvinced of the administration's explanation and responded to a question about Ms Bondi's previous statement. She added: "Yes. She was saying the entirety of all of the paperwork, all of the paper relating to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes." The administration's previous comments about being willing to release any Epstein files with Ms Bondi's comments being viewed by many Trump supporters as an indication they did, in fact, exist. The administration's dangling a supposed release of the files took a dramatic turn when Mr Musk previously claimed Mr Trump was in them. Mr Musk provided no evidence to support his claim. The Mirror has contacted Mr Bannon via the Stephen K. Bannon War Room.