In a 4-3 ruling July 8, the liberal-controlled court ruled that thelgbtq Republican-controlled legislative committee's rejection of a state agency rule that would ban the practice of conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ people was unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state to institute a ban on the discredited practice in which counselors instruct gay patients to change their sexual orientation.
The ruling could have sweeping implications for the interaction between the Legislature and the governor's office, as it determines whether the legislative committee can continue to block rules created by the governor's office, rather than going through the full Legislature to create policy.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky called the abilities exercised by the Republican-controlled Legislature to halt administrative rules indefinitely unconstitutional and said the committee was exercising its powers without a check.
But, she noted, the Legislature can create rules and laws through the legislative process.
“…the Legislature retains power over the administrative rulemaking process regardless of our determination here,” she said. “The Legislature created the current process. It alone maintains the ability to amend, expand, or limit the breadth of administrative rulemaking in the other branches — as long as it adheres to the constitution.”
The lawsuit was brought by Evers against the Legislature's Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules — a powerful Republican-controlled panel in charge of approving state agency regulations — after the committee blocked the provision barring conversion therapy in the state twice.
In a statement, Evers celebrated the victory and said Republicans for years have been allowed to overstep their power and cause gridlock by holding up administrative rules.
"It’s pretty simple — a handful of Republican lawmakers should not be able to single-handedly and indefinitely obstruct state agencies from doing the people’s work," he said in a news release.
“Wisconsinites want to protect our constitutional checks and balances. Today’s Wisconsin Supreme Court decision ensures that no small group of lawmakers has the sole power to stymie the work of state government and go unchecked. This is an incredibly important decision that will ensure state government can do our important work efficiently and effectively to serve Wisconsinites across our state."
Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, also championed the decision.
“This decision will mean a fundamental change — for the better— in how Wisconsin state government works. No longer will a small group of legislators be able to block or suspend common-sense administrative rules indefinitely," he said in a news release. "Instead, rules that protect Wisconsinites will be able to be adopted without being subject to an unconstitutional legislative committee veto.”
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, said the decision "strips the Legislature of its check and balance powers" and "bestows even more power to the executive branch," criticizing the court for removing oversight.
“For decades, case law has upheld the constitutionality of the legislative rules committee to serve as a legitimate check on the powers of the Governor and the overreach of the bureaucracy. Today’s decision overrules those cases," Vos said in a statement. "As Justice Rebecca Bradley said in her dissent, ‘Progressives like to protest against ‘kings’ – unless it is one of their own making.’”
Justice Brian Hagedorn both concurred and dissented with the opinion of the liberal majority of the court.
While he suggested it was time to “rethink the administrative state,” he said the majority went too far, arguing against a portion of the ruling.
“In my judgment, this cries out for judicial humility and restraint,” he said. “We need not sidestep this issue, but we should proceed with caution, going only as far as we must to decide it correctly.”
Justice Annette Ziegler, in a dissenting opinion, called the majority’s ruling “a misguided quest to restructure and unbalance our state government.”
She argued that legislative power was being narrowed with the ruling, while giving the executive branch — the governor and agencies — an outsized ability to legislate.
“Now is not the time to unleash a sea change in the law regarding how our state government is structured, and there should never be a time to unequally apply the constitution,” she said.
In her separate dissent, Bradley quoted singer Bruce Springsteen, saying, “A king ain’t satisfied ‘til he rules everything.”
She said that while the majority holds the Legislature to constitutional rules of lawmaking, the executive branch is allowed to exercise its power “unfettered and unchecked.”
“The majority imperils more than the structural separation of powers (if that isn’t bad enough),” she said. “If the courts continue to consent to the redistribution of constitutional powers between the branches, then all constitutional provisions are susceptible to revision by the government, and the governed have lost their ability to govern themselves.”
The ruling comes as a national battle over LGBTQ+ rights heats up, with the nation's highest court upholding Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors in June.
In Wisconsin, Evers has vetoed Republican bills targeting transgender athletes to push back on anti-LGBTQ+ efforts in the state.
While the state's highest court did not say how they would ultimately rule when it heard oral arguments in January, questions from the court's four liberal justices indicated the majority did not agree with the Legislature's decision to give power to a legislative committee to block statewide rules implemented by the executive branch.
"They are acting as the body that was elected," said Justice Rebecca Dallet, who is part of the court's liberal majority, during oral arguments. "This structure is a few people who get all the power to make a decision about what happens to what an agency does with their rulemaking."
Environmental groups also applauded the ruling and suggested its impact is broader than the issue at hand of banning conversion therapy.
Midwest Environmental Advocates, in a news release, pointed to the 2020 decision of the JCRAR committee to weaken monitoring requirements for "forever chemicals" implemented by the Department of Natural Resources.
That decision, the release said, has allowed a company in northeastern Wisconsin to continue to discharge the toxic chemicals, which have been linked to cancer and fertility issues, to the Marinette Wastewater Treatment Plant.
“In the past, small groups of legislators have been able to block the implementation of popular environmental protections passed by the full legislature and signed by the governor,” said Tony Wilkin Gibart, executive director of MEA. “This process violated basic constitutional principles and was often exploited by polluters and industry groups to effectively repeal environmental laws—outcomes they could never achieve through the normal legislative process.”
Anna Kleiber can be reached at akleiber@gannett.com.
(This story has been updated to add new information.)
From: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2025/07/08/wisconsin-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-conversion-therapy-can-be-enacted/84429777007/
Posts
