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 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.
Legislative power at stake
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. Overturning that ruling would be deeply disruptive, attorney Misha Tseytlin argued.
Evers argued 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 'proved unworkable,' Evers said.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed with Evers.
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.
Evers argued in the lawsuit that the panel has effectively been exercising an unconstitutional 'legislative veto.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump to check out Federal Reserve's pricey renovations
The Federal Reserve, known for its tight lips, structured formality and extraordinary power to shape the global economy, finds itself putting out the welcome mat for President Donald Trump. Trump and his allies say a $US2.5 billion ($A3.8 billion) renovation of the Fed headquarters and a neighbouring building reflects an institution run amok — a belief they hope to verify in a Thursday afternoon tour of the construction site. The Fed allowed reporters to tour the building before the visit by Trump, who in his real estate career, has bragged about his lavish spending on architectural accoutrements that gave a Versailles-like golden flair to his buildings. The visit is an attempt to further ratchet up pressure on Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whom the Republican president has relentlessly attacked for not cutting borrowing costs. Trump's attacks have put the Fed, a historically independent institution, under a harsh spotlight. Undermining its independence could reduce the Fed's ability to calm financial markets and stabilise the US economy. "This stubborn guy at the Fed just doesn't get it — Never did, and never will," Trump said Wednesday on Truth Social. "The Board should act, but they don't have the Courage to do so!" On Thursday, reporters wound through cement mixers, front loaders, and plastic pipes as they got a close-up view of the active construction site that encompasses the Fed's historic headquarters, known as the Marriner S Eccles building, and a second building across 20th Street in Washington. Fed staff pointed out new blast-resistant windows and seismic walls that were needed to comply with modern building codes and security standards set out by the Department of Homeland Security. The Fed has to build with the highest level of security in mind, Fed staff said, including something called "progressive collapse," in which only parts of the building would fall if hit with explosives. Sensitivity to the president's pending visit among Fed staff was high during the tour. Reporters were ushered into a small room outside the Fed's boardroom, where 19 officials meet eight times a year to decide whether to change short-term interest rates. The room, which will have a security booth, is oval-shaped, and someone had written "Oval Office" on plywood walls. The Fed staff downplayed the inscription as a joke. When reporters returned through the room later, it had been painted over. Plans for the renovation were first approved by the Fed's governing board in 2017. Fed staff also said tariffs and inflationary increases in building material costs also drove up costs. Trump in 2018 imposed a 25 per cent duty on steel and 10 per cent on aluminum. Steel prices are up about 60 per cent since the plans were approved in June, while construction materials costs overall are up about 50 per cent, according to government data. Fed staff also pointed to the complication of historic renovations — both buildings have significant preservation needs. Constructing a new building on an empty site would have been cheaper. The Fed has previously attributed much of the project's cost to underground construction. It is also adding three underground levels of parking for its second building. Initially, the central bank proposed building more above ground, but ran into Washington, DC's height restrictions, forcing more underground construction. When construction began in 2022, the Fed estimated the cost at $US1.9 billion ($A2.9 billion), and it has since grown by about 30 per cent. Trump wants Powell to dramatically slash the Fed's benchmark interest rate under the belief that inflation is not a problem, but Powell wants to see how Trump's tariffs impact the economy before making any rate cuts that could potentially cause inflation to accelerate. The renovation project has emerged as the possible justification by Trump to take the extraordinary step of firing Powell for cause, an act that some administration officials have played down, given that the Fed chair's term ends in May 2026. Pushing Powell out also would almost certainly jolt global markets, potentially having the opposite effect that Trump wants as he pushes for lower borrowing costs. When asked last week if the costly rebuilding could be grounds to fire Powell, Trump said, "I think it sort of is". Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Obama, sedition and Trump's urgent need to distract
To any American with an extremely short memory or perhaps a desire only to see the world through Donald Trump's eyes, the recent memo from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and the call from President Trump to investigate former President Barack Obama over the memo's claims of 'treasonous conspiracy' over claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election must be alarming. Talk of 'overwhelming evidence' and a 'yearslong coup,' 'seditious conspiracy' and 'treason' sure sound pretty serious. Well, they do until you quickly review your notes and recognize that A, President Trump has an urgent need for distraction given his ties to Jeffrey Epstein and the administration's failure to — despite big promises to the conspiracy-hungry during the presidential campaign — release details of the investigation into the late American financier and sex offender. And B, this is a subject that has been investigated to death with no fewer than four official inquiries, including a 2020 U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report (written while the GOP had Senate control) and the special report authored by Trump-appointed special counsel John Durham that came out in 2023. And what did they find? There was ample reason to worry about Russian interference in the 2016 race, and it was clear the Kremlin didn't want Democrat Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office. Was then-candidate Trump complicit in these efforts? Nope, not in a manner those various investigators could prove. But Russian interference? There was ample evidence of computer hacking, of digging through emails and of using intermediaries to undermine Clinton (remember WikiLeaks?). Or how about simply remembering Robert S. Mueller III? The special counsel indicted a dozen Russians, none of whom has ever stood trial because they could not be extradited. Even then-U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (now Trump's U.S. secretary of state) observed that interference signing off on that 2020 report, which concluded 'the Russian government inappropriately meddled in our 2016 general election in many ways but then-Candidate Trump was not complicit.' Hopefully, most people aren't taking these claims of treason seriously. They serve only to diminish Trump and Gabbard. Think those criminal referrals Gabbard has sent to the U.S. Department of Justice will result in a successful prosecution? Even Las Vegas will surely refuse wagers on that long shot. Those who still harbor doubts can go peruse those various reports (and their thousands of pages of findings). The rest of us will just have to be content to recognize that the current president and his cronies lie like rugs when it serves their purpose. Peter Jensen is an editorial writer at The Baltimore Sun; he can be reached at pejensen@
USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court pauses ruling that weakened 1965 Voting Rights Act
A lower court severely limited who can bring discrimination challenges under the landmark 1965 law. WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court paused a lower court's ruling limiting who can sue under the under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, a move backed by civil rights groups and other advocates. Over the objections of three conservative justices, the high court on July 24 put a ruling by the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on hold while two Native American tribes appeal it. If allowed to stand, the appeals court's decision would severely undermine enforcement of the law. It said only the U.S. attorney general is authorized to sue under a key section of the law, meaning voters, Native American tribes and groups like the NAACP would be barred from doing so. In this case, the tribes and three voters challenged a state legislative map in North Dakota they said dilutes the voting power of Native Americans. A federal district judge agreed, but the appeals court said vote dilution claims cannot be enforced through lawsuits brought by individual voters or groups. The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe called that decision a 'knee-cap' to the nation's 'most important civil rights statute.' Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color or other characteristics. In a brief supporting the tribes, the NAACP said the history of that section 'has been written largely through private enforcement.' But North Dakota's attorney general argues Congress did not clearly intend a private enforcement right when the act became law decades ago. The state also said the Supreme Court should keep the appeals court's decision in effect for now to allow the 2026 elections to be conducted under the map challenged by the tribes. That map eliminated two of the three legislative districts in which Native American voters could elect their preferred candidates. Three justices − Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch − said they would have kept the decision in place while the Supreme Court considers whether to hear the tribes' appeal. The appeals court's decision affects voting rights litigation in seven states: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. Republican attorneys general in most of those states and a few others filed a brief backing the appeals court's decision. More: Supreme Court defers decision on challenge to Louisiana congressional map The Supreme Court is still deciding how to resolve a dispute over Louisiana's congressional districts that involves an interplay between the Voting Rights Act and a racial gerrymandering challenge. Instead of issuing a decision, the court announced in June that it will hear new arguments in its next term.
