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 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.
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.
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 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
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump looms large over a Fed likely to again defy his call for cuts
President Trump will loom large over the Federal Reserve's policy meeting this week, even if the central bank does what the market expects and keeps interest rates on hold. Trump and other top White House officials have been hammering Fed Chair Jerome Powell for months over his wait-and-see rate stance and his insistence that more time is needed to assess how the president's tariffs will affect the path of inflation. The president took that message directly to the Fed last Thursday as he toured a $2.5 billion renovation of the central bank's headquarters and confronted Powell in person while the two argued in front of reporters over the true costs of the project. "I just want to see one thing happen, very simple: Interest rates have to come down," the president told reporters. Traders widely expect the Fed's Federal Open Market Committee to defy Trump and once again keep rates unchanged this Wednesday, as they have for every other meeting so far in 2025. The market expects the first cut of 2025 to happen on Sept. 17, the third-to-last meeting of the year. But at least two of Powell's colleagues are warming to Trump's near-term rate cut call, which could produce some disagreement this week behind closed doors in Washington. One Fed governor, Christoper Waller, has already hinted that he may publicly dissent Wednesday if his colleagues vote to keep rates unchanged. His opinion is that any inflation from Trump's tariffs will prove to be temporary, and he's concerned that the labor market may soon worsen. But many other Fed officials have backed Powell in his view that more time is needed to assess the impact of Trump's tariffs on inflation. They also note that the labor market is holding up, removing any urgency to act in the way that Trump wants. Read more: How the Fed rate decision affects your bank accounts, loans, credit cards, and investments "This is a campaign of undermining the chairman's credibility and really trying to undermine his public support in the face of what I think is the real objective, and that is to get a lower rate environment in place," former Kansas City Fed president Esther George said. A Powell press conference following the meeting on Wednesday gives the Fed chair a new chance to respond to the White House's escalating pressure campaign and mounting questions about the $2.5 billion renovation of two Fed buildings along the National Mall. Trump considered firing Powell in recent weeks but has now appeared to back away from doing so, telling reporters this past week that "he is going to be out pretty soon anyway" — a reference to the fact that Powell's term as chair is up in May. While touring the Fed's construction site on Thursday, Trump said of firing Powell: "To do that is a big move, and I just don't think it's necessary." Read more: How much control does the president have over the Fed and interest rates? New headaches But that doesn't mean the White House is going to let up on Powell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this past week called for a review of the central bank's $2.5 billion project and an "exhaustive internal review' of its non-monetary policy operations. He argued that "significant mission creep and institutional growth have taken the Fed into areas that potentially jeopardize the independence of its core monetary policy mission." The Fed also got another new headache last week when a money manager — and Trump ally who recently served as an adviser to the Department of Government Efficiency — filed a lawsuit arguing that the central bank is violating a 1976 federal law by keeping its policy meetings behind closed doors. That money manager, Azoria Capital, is asking for a Washington, D.C., federal court to issue a temporary restraining order compelling the FOMC to open its deliberations to the public this week. Some on Capitol Hill are also getting louder about more scrutiny of the Fed. Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania, a subcommittee chair on the House Financial Services Committee, is reportedly moving forward with a congressional investigation of the Fed, according to PunchBowl News, even as many of his Senate colleagues have shied away from that idea. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, another Trump ally, formally requested that the DOJ investigate Powell for perjury over June comments about the renovations, although that is seen as a long shot at best. House Speaker Mike Johnson said in an interview with Bloomberg reporters and editors last week that he is "disenchanted" with Powell and is even open to modifying the 1913 act that created the Fed. That would be a major change, but it is not expected to come before Congress in the near term, as the House of Representatives went home Wednesday evening for a recess that is scheduled to last for the rest of the summer. Powell has repeatedly stated that he does not intend to leave as chair until his term is up, that his removal is "not permitted by law," and that he was honest and transparent about the Fed's construction project while testifying before Senate lawmakers on June 25. In a July 17 letter to White House budget director Russ Vought, Powell wrote that "we take seriously the responsibility to be good stewards of public resources" and offered a point-by-point response to Vought's concerns about cost overruns and certain design elements. Read more: What experts say about the possibility of additional rate cuts 'I do think it's damaging' Trump and his allies have taken to several new lines of attack against Powell, even beyond the building renovation, as they argue for rates to be as many as three percentage points lower. They cite what they predict will be savings on US debt if the rate is lower, as well as how a lower rate would make borrowing for a home less expensive in the US. Trump has even hinted that he has more than just Powell to blame for the fact that rates have remained unchanged since he took office. "The Board should act, but they don't have the Courage to do so!" Trump wrote on his social media platform this past week, referring to the larger Fed Board of Governors on which Powell serves. StoneX senior adviser Jon Hilsenrath told Yahoo Finance that he expects Trump's attacks to eventually extend to the regional Fed presidents based around the country. They have rotating positions on the Fed body that makes the final call on rates. The president does not appoint the regional Fed bosses, who are instead chosen by banks in those Fed districts. One of them, Chicago Fed president Austan Goolsbee, defended Powell in a July 18 interview with Yahoo Finance, calling the Fed chair a "totally honorable guy." He also expressed concerns about Fed independence. "It pains me to hear people actively discussing whether the central bank should be independent. There's nothing good can come of discussion like that." George, the former Kansas City Fed president, said of the president's pressure campaign targeting building renovations: "I do think it's damaging." "It's when we undermine institutions and create suspicion in the public that something is wrong here, I think credibility suffers," she said. "This is a time when the Fed needs its independence," George added. "It is a time when, yes, lower rates would help the federal government, but we know countries that have gone down that path, and we know in this country going down that path does not produce good outcomes in the long term." Last Thursday, though, Trump sounded confident during his tour of the Fed's headquarters that Powell would see things his way. "I think he's going to do the right thing,' the president said. "Everybody knows what the right thing is.' Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
Fast Company
36 minutes ago
- Fast Company
The coming battle among YIMBYs
The YIMBY ('yes in my backyard') movement has achieved remarkable growth in the past few years, uniting people across the political spectrum who share a common belief: It should be easy to build more housing. You can find shared interests among unlikely alliances when you step out of political tribes. People who label themselves as socialists and capitalists are standing at town hall podiums to support and promote abundant housing. High fives! Hooray for unity, right? Insert record scratch. Socialists and capitalists have economic worldviews that are incompatible with each other. There's definitely consensus about the ends (plenty of homes), but the means will be hotly debated. The clash was inevitable, and the recent book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, Abundance, has keyboard warriors starting to realize there are a host of competing opinions on how to get past the gatekeepers who would have homes remain scarce. You might think something as apolitical as a townhouse wouldn't be a lightning rod for a populist left-versus-right debate. The reason is economics. Considering the surge in populism in recent years, it's worth understanding why economics, not 'neighborhood character,' is at the heart of the argument. The Socialist YIMBY Socialist YIMBY advocates believe housing should be universally accessible, treated fundamentally as a human right rather than a commodity to be bought and sold for profit. Prominent democratic socialists, like New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and Minneapolis mayoral candidate Omar Fateh, argue for 'decommodifying' housing, where the government would guarantee homes. Market forces are not part of the equation. A socialist YIMBY is going to want state-managed housing solutions, price controls, rent freezes, and strict regulations on private ownership. Mamdani even said he'd be open to the abolition of private property if it meant getting people places to live. Socialist YIMBYs build their case on fairness, social justice, and community stability. They argue that a free market creates disparities, displaces vulnerable populations, and commodifies essential human needs. The belief here is that removing profit motives from housing reduces speculation, stabilizes communities, and ensures housing stability and equity, prioritizing human dignity and communal well-being above private gain. The Capitalist YIMBY Capitalist YIMBY advocates believe in leveraging market mechanisms. To them, the root cause of housing shortages lies in artificial restrictions imposed by zoning laws, burdensome permitting processes, and other bureaucratic interference. Their economic rationale hinges on the concept of supply and demand, and prices as crucial signals. Capitalist YIMBYs argue that when the price of a type of home goes up in an area, it signals to developers, investors, and builders that demand is high and supply low. Rather than suppressing these signals through artificial price controls, they propose getting rid of laws that prohibit housing and streamline approval processes in order to spur rapid and flexible housing production. They argue that robust competition among builders and investors inherently leads to diverse housing options, lower overall costs, and more innovation in housing solutions. The Perplexed YIMBY A person is standing at the philosophical crossroads to abundant housing and two fellow YIMBYs are giving conflicting directions: 'We have to go left.' 'No, we have to go right.' Socialists look at capitalist solutions as inherently exploitative, always creating more inequalities, and they believe profit motives are what make homes too expensive. Capitalists look at socialist solutions as inevitably leading to inefficiencies, housing shortages, and stagnation. When I've asked people about their take on this conflict, a common response is something like 'We'll have enough homes for everyone if building regulations are relaxed and the government is in charge of low-income housing.' I believe that's wishful thinking, since it brings us right back to the fundamental disagreement on economics. A capitalist will say, 'There is a market for small and modest housing, so get the government out of the way.' The socialist will say, 'We don't believe you.' I truly believe that populists on the left and the right want there to be enough homes for everyone. But it's also clear that the populist left and right will forever treat each other like they're living in a cartoon or comic book. 'I'm the good guy and you're the bad guy.' In spite of their shared interest in abundant housing, the socialist YIMBYs and capitalist YIMBYs are never going to agree on the means to the end. The best first step is something both sides claim to support: getting rid of the local regulatory barriers that are preventing anyone from building a granny flat, a townhouse, a duplex, etc.
New York Times
37 minutes ago
- New York Times
Europe Cuts a Trade Deal With Trump, Worried About Other Global Issues
Survive and advance. That phrase, favored by sports teams in big tournaments, sums up Europe's approach to the trade negotiations it just wrapped with the Trump administration. For Europe, surviving in the first year of President Trump's second term means reaching an agreement on a trade deal that almost certainly won't help the continental economy — but isn't as bad as it could have been. Advancing means keeping Mr. Trump engaged in the foreign policy issues that have preoccupied many European leaders more this summer than their own domestic economic struggles. Those issues include the fate of the Iranian nuclear program, the conflict and humanitarian crisis in Gaza and, most important, Ukraine's ongoing war against Russia's invasion. The trade deal is centered on a tariff of 15 percent on most goods imposed by the United States on imports from the European Union. It reflects a sort of risk aversion from leaders like Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission; Friedrich Merz, the chancellor of Germany; and Emmanuel Macron, the president of France. Those leaders were not willing to risk escalating a trade war that could have hurt European companies more than Mr. Trump's tariffs already have. And they were not willing to risk deepening a diplomatic rift with the United States, the country Europeans have repeatedly cast as a crucial peace broker. 'It will bring stability,' Ms. von der Leyen said at a news conference with Mr. Trump in Scotland on Sunday. 'It will bring predictability. That's very important for our businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.' Europe could have fought Mr. Trump longer, hoping for better terms. E.U. members had already agreed to a set of retaliatory tariffs on about $100 billion in American exports to Europe, which they could have decided to trigger if Mr. Trump had followed through on his threat to tax European exports at 30 percent starting on Aug. 1. Mr. Trump had pushed similar deadlines back before. In recent days, statements from German, French and other officials suggested members of the bloc were moving closer together on the questions of whether to actually retaliate, and when. They had reasons to do that. The European Union could use more economic growth. Economists outside the Trump administration have generally warned that tariffs hurt growth instead of boosting it. (In their models, tariffs on imports hurt American growth, too.) Europe's leaders generally agree with those economists. 'These tariffs, regardless of their long-term level, harm us all,' Mr. Merz told reporters this month, before the deal was struck. 'Not just us Europeans, but, in my firm conviction, also harm the American economy in the longer term.' But a moment later, Mr. Merz sounded resigned to a big tariff increase no matter what deal was struck. 'President Trump repeatedly emphasizes that he loves tariffs,' he said. 'This means we will have to accept that the American government will act this way, at least as long as the trade deficit persists from their perspective.' In a news release on Sunday, Mr. Merz cheered the deal but added, almost wistfully, 'I would have certainly welcomed further facilitation of trans-Atlantic trade.' The chancellor and his counterparts across Europe have expressed no such resignation when it comes to Mr. Trump and Ukraine. In phone calls and text messages, on treks to the White House and in summit meetings in Canada and the Netherlands, they have pushed him to shake off his friendliness with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and to back Kyiv in its war effort. The Europeans have flattered Mr. Trump. They have exhorted him. And they have refused to back down from their grand hope that American support for Ukraine could force Mr. Putin into peace talks and bring an end to the conflict. Sunday's deal reduces the chances that trade tensions will complicate that or other foreign policy appeals to Mr. Trump. But it does not eliminate them. Canada and Mexico illustrate why. They renegotiated their trade agreement with the United States in Mr. Trump's first term — only to find themselves back in talks now. 'We'd caution strongly against taking the announced deals as the final word,' researchers from Pantheon Macroeconomics, a research firm that focuses on the global economy, warned this week, citing court challenges and other uncertainty. Many European officials privately say the same is true of Mr. Trump's pledges of support for Ukraine or his commitment to the defense of NATO allies should they come under attack. They know his positions can change. His mood can shift. The terms of his deals are always subject to renegotiation. That's the thing about surviving and advancing with Mr. Trump. Every day brings another game.
