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 Democrat governor's office that carry the force of law.
The 4-3 ruling from the liberal-controlled court comes amid the national battle over pro-homosexual policies. It is also part of a broader effort by the Democratic governor, who has vetoed Republican bills aimed at protecting women's sports from males as well as keeping males out of women's bathrooms and change rooms, to rein in the power of the GOP-controlled Legislature.
What is known as conversion therapy is the right to counsel people involved in the homosexual lifestyle to consider returning to heterosexuality or traditional gender expectations.
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 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.”
