Rainbow LGBTQ heart on hands, Getty Images
Since 2018, Marc Herstand has been on the forefront of a campaign to ban mental health professionals in Wisconsin from counseling clients with the goal of changing their sexual orientation or gender identity.
“Conversion therapy” has been denounced by mainstream professional organizations for doctors, psychiatrists, social workers and counselors. “People likened it to child abuse and torture,” says Herstand, executive director of the National Association of Social Workers Wisconsin chapter. “LGBT kids who are not accepted have a much, much higher rate of suicidality and mental health issues.”
Twenty states — and several local communities in Wisconsin — have banned the practice. And since late April 2024, the state professional licensing board for therapists, counselors and social workers has labeled conversion therapy as unprofessional conduct.
“It has no place whatsoever in the mental health professions, frankly, in our society,” Herstand says.
The provision banning the practice is precarious, however. Twice it’s been blocked by one of the Wisconsin Legislature’s most powerful committees. And advocates for the LGBTQ community fear it could be blocked again.
“Undoing this rule would overturn the work of the state’s mental health experts and expose young people and their families to unnecessary and lasting harms,” says Casey Pick, director of law and policy at the national LGBTQ advocy group The Trevor Project.
Next week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear arguments in a lawsuit that could determine whether the conversion therapy ban survives — and whether that legislative body has been overstepping its bounds in overriding state regulations that address everything from environmental quality to public health.
The Legislature’s Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) has been a thorn in the side of the administration of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers since he took office in January 2019. The committee’s power under Wisconsin law to stymie regulations enacted by the executive branch was one of three issues that Evers identified in a lawsuit the governor filed in October 2023 charging that Republican leaders of the Wisconsin Legislature were exercising an unconstitutional “legislative veto” to thwart his administration from carrying out its duties.
The lawsuit went straight to the Supreme Court. This past July the Court ruled 6-1 in Evers’ favor on the first of those three issues, throwing out state laws that had allowed the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee to block how the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources spends money budgeted for the Knowles-Nelson stewardship fund.
In October, the Court dismissed the lawsuit’s second issue, an objection to actions by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) that had held up raises for University of Wisconsin system employees to pressure the UW into eliminating its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. A deal between Vos and the UW Board of Regents ended the delay in December 2023.
The Court also said it would take up the third issue: the power that JCRAR has exercised to block regulations, sometimes repeatedly. Over the last six years, the 10-member committee’s six Republican lawmakers have voted to block or rewrite rules drawn up by state agencies on matters including environmental regulations, vaccine requirements and public health protections.
Two rules blocked
The Evers lawsuit identifies two JCRAR actions. One was the committee’s vote in January 2023 blocking the conversion therapy ban. The second was a committee vote blocking a state building code update. Both measures were produced under the umbrella of the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS).
The building code revision was developed over three years in a series of meetings and hearings following national and international model documents under the direction of a statewide professional building code body. Brian Flannery, a veteran building inspector who was part of the code revision process, told the Wisconsin Examiner in a 2023 interview that at two hearings, there were no objections to the code change brought to the group.
In August 2023, however, a Senate committee voted along party lines against approving the new building code following a hearing in which objections were raised by business lobbyists. JCRAR held a vote Sept. 29, 2023, approving an “indefinite objection” — blocking DSPS from reintroducing the code update unless the Legislature passes a bill authorizing it.
The JCRAR vote was 6-4 on party lines, with only Republicans supporting the motion, and was conducted by paper ballot, without a hearing and without the committee meeting in person.
Therapists’ ethics rules
The rule opposing conversion therapy for LGBTQ persons was part of an ethics revision by the Wisconsin Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling, and Social Work Examining Board.
Herstand of the National Association of Social Workers said he first appealed to the examining board in 2018 to ban conversion therapy. Later that year the board began the process of revising the state professional code and added to the list of actions considered “unprofessional conduct” a provision that began, “Employing or promoting any intervention or method that has the purpose of attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity…”
“When I talk to survivors of conversion therapy, I hear their struggles with loss of trust — trust for family members, trust for licensed medical professionals and the entire health care system,” Abigail Swetz, executive director of Fair Wisconsin, an LGBTQ advocacy group, tells the Wisconsin Examiner. “Conversion therapy really erodes that ability to trust, and that makes interacting with the health care system in the future more difficult.”
A study from the Trevor Project also shows “a significant increase in suicide attempts, and not only that, but also a significant increase in multiple suicide attempts,” Swetz adds.
After hearings and the board’s unanimous vote to advance the rule change, however, JCRAR voted 6-4 to put the change on a temporary hold until the end of the 2021-22 legislative session.
At the end of November 2022, the examining board republished the new ethics code, effective Dec. 1 of that year. Six weeks later, JCRAR convened again, holding a public hearing.
Mental health professionals and LGBTQ advocates urged the committee to allow the new code to stand. Herstand was among them, describing conversion therapy as “Child abuse. Torture. Major mental health and suicidal risk. Unprofessional conduct. Fake therapy.”
Testifying in favor of throwing out the rule, Julaine Appling, executive director of the conservative Wisconsin Family Council, said the ban violated professionals’ freedom of speech and religion.
JCRAR again voted 6-4 to suspend the rule for the rest of the 2023-24 legislative session. The committee co-chair, Rep. Adam Neylon (R-Pewaukee) said that “the merits of any conversion therapy or any other type of therapy” was “a question for the Legislature as it is public policy and deals with speech issues.”
Nine months later, Evers filed his lawsuit, calling both of the committee actions examples of an unconstitutional legislative veto that hampered the executive branch from doing its job.
In April, with the Legislature wrapped up for the rest of 2024, the examining board reinstated the code banning conversion therapy.
Sending rules to limbo
Under Wisconsin law, JCRAR can object to a rule after it is promulgated, either temporarily — for the balance of a legislative session — or indefinitely. State law also holds that if lawmakers introduce legislation that codifies a rule objection, the rule stays blocked until the legislation is vetoed by the governor.
Instead, however, lawmakers have introduced such legislation and referred it to committee, where it has remained dormant for the rest of the legislative session in order to avoid a veto that would restore the blocked rule.
The Evers administration argues that by blocking regulations, JCRAR is taking over the power that the Wisconsin Constitution confers on the governor to carry out the laws.
“In other words, when JCRAR vetoes a proposed rule, it effectively amends the statute under which the executive agency proposed that rule,” a brief filed on behalf of Evers argues.
“By proposing the conversion therapy rule, the [therapy licensing board] exercised that statutory authority. By objecting to that rule, JCRAR effectively withdrew a share of the statutory authority the Legislature had granted to the Board” — in essence, the brief argues, unilaterally rewriting the state law that authorizes the licensing board to set the profession’s ethical standards.
“JCRAR does not have that power—only the full Legislature does,” the brief states.
The committee’s action — and the state laws that empower it — undercut the legal right of the profession to set its standards, Herstand tells the Wisconsin Examiner.
“It’s an issue of the ability of professions, which is delineated in the law, in statute, to set their own ethical standards, when some in the Legislature are trying to prevent that,” he says. “To me, that’s a violation of statute.”
A brief filed on behalf of the Legislature’s Republican leaders argues otherwise. A 1992 state Supreme Court ruling upheld the right of the committee and the Legislature to suspend rules as part of its oversight of the executive branch. While the Evers administration argues that the earlier decision was wrong and should be overturned, the legislators’ brief contends it should be honored as legal precedent.
In defense of JCRAR’s powers, the legislators’ brief describes regulations as the product of power “delegated” by the lawmakers — an argument that lawyers for the governor reject.
A friend of the court brief by a group of legal scholars, including Miriam Seifter and Bryna Godar of the University of Wisconsin Law School, sides with the administration. The power that Wisconsin law grants to JCRAR is unlike that found in other states and unconstitutional, the brief argues.
“Wisconsin’s anomalous statutory scheme allows a handful of legislators to determine whether administrative rules are lawful; to suspend otherwise final rules forever or rescind them once in force; and to act without deadlines or judicial review,” the brief states. “The Constitution readily permits other forms of agency oversight, but it precludes these committee overreaches into the domains of the executive branch, the judiciary, and the people.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.