© Copyright 2025 MarriageFamilyTherapist.org
How the Federal Lawsuit Challenging Wisconsin's Conversion-Therapy Rule Could Reshape Scope of Practice for Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists
Two Wisconsin-licensed therapists have filed a federal lawsuit to protect their ability to offer Christ-centered talk therapy, directly challenging state regulation MPSW 20.02(25). The rule classifies any effort to change sexual orientation or gender identity as unprofessional conduct, and the plaintiffs, LMFT Terri Koschnick and LPC Joy Buchman, argue it violates their First Amendment rights under a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.
That ruling, Chiles v. Salazar, struck down a Colorado law as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) contends the state's nearly identical rule cannot survive. For MFTs and their salary prospects, the professional stakes are real: licensing board discipline can end a practice. This case tests whether licensing boards can restrict voluntary, faith-integrated counseling conversations, and its outcome could reshape scope-of-practice boundaries for LMFTs nationwide.
The intersection of professional regulation and religiously informed therapy is reshaping conversations across Wisconsin, as a state rule now faces its largest legal challenge to date. Wisconsin Admin. Code § MPSW 20.02(25) declares it unprofessional conduct for any board licensee to "employ, promote, or otherwise participate in" any intervention intended to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. The rule sits inside the broader code that governs professional conduct under the Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling, and Social Work Examining Board, and it applies directly to LMFTs, LPCs, and LCSWs licensed by the Wisconsin board.
The regulation does not reach clergy, unlicensed spiritual advisors, or pastoral counselors operating outside of state licensure. It attaches specifically to individuals who hold a professional license through the Wisconsin board and therefore subjects them to disciplinary oversight. For a practicing LMFT, this means any session that a regulator might interpret as an attempt to alter a client's sexual orientation or gender identity, regardless of client consent, becomes a potential violation.
"Unprofessional conduct" under the MPSW code is a disciplinary classification, not a criminal charge. A finding of unprofessional conduct can trigger board sanctions ranging from a reprimand and continuing education requirements to license suspension or revocation. For a therapist whose career depends on a clean license, even an investigation can disrupt a practice. The board retains broad discretion to investigate complaints and determine whether a licensee's actions crossed the line, which is exactly why the rule's language matters.
The lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty argues that the regulation is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to define key terms such as "intervention" or "promote." Without clear definitions, a therapist leading a client in prayer or exploring faith-based values in a session could inadvertently run afoul of the rule, even when no pressure to change orientation occurs. The plaintiffs contend that this ambiguity forces practitioners to censor legitimate therapeutic conversations out of fear of board action, a chilling effect that the U.S. Supreme Court has already found problematic in related First Amendment cases.
The lawsuit challenging Wisconsin's therapy rule was brought by two licensed mental health professionals who argue the regulation violates their constitutional rights and stifles the ability to offer faith-integrated counseling to clients who seek it voluntarily.
The plaintiffs are Terri Koschnick, a licensed marriage and family therapist (LMFT) based in Oconomowoc, and Joy Buchman, a licensed professional counselor (LPC) from La Crosse. Koschnick earned her master's degree from UW-Whitewater and her bachelor's from UW-Stevens Point. Buchman holds a master's and bachelor's from Winona State University, along with a certificate in mental health counseling from UW-Madison.
Both practitioners provide talk therapy that blends their clinical training with a Christian faith perspective. Their clients voluntarily seek this Christ-centered approach, and the therapy is never imposed. The therapists do not engage in coercive efforts to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity; rather, they integrate religious values into standard counseling methods when a client requests it.
The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), a public interest law firm, represents Koschnick and Buchman. WILL Deputy Counsel Rebecca Furdek stated that the Wisconsin rule is "materially indistinguishable" from a Colorado statute that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by an 8-1 vote. For context on what LMFT Colorado licensure requirements look like under that state's post-ruling landscape, that framework now differs meaningfully from Wisconsin's contested rule.
The lawsuit asserts three core constitutional violations. First, it claims the rule engages in viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment, because it silences speech that endorses or explores a faith-based perspective on sexual orientation or gender identity while allowing other viewpoints. Second, it alleges a violation of the free exercise of religion, as the rule penalizes therapists who incorporate Christian beliefs into their practice. Third, the plaintiffs argue the rule is unconstitutionally vague, leaving therapists unsure what conversations with willing clients might trigger discipline. This vagueness chills protected speech, they contend, because even consensual, non-coercive talk therapy could be misconstrued as attempting to change orientation or identity.
Before filing suit, WILL notified the administration of Governor Tony Evers about the Supreme Court's holding, asking the state to voluntarily withdraw or adjust the rule. The administration refused. Wisconsin Right Now reported on June 21, 2026, that the Evers administration would not follow the high court's precedent.1 The federal lawsuit followed shortly thereafter. As of mid-2026, the case is moving forward in federal court, though specific docket numbers are not yet publicly available.1
Two therapeutic pathways, Christ-centered talk therapy and conversion therapy, diverge sharply in their goals, methods, and professional standing. While both may involve licensed practitioners and conversations about identity, their core missions, clinical evidence, and reception by oversight bodies are fundamentally opposed. Understanding these differences is critical for licensed counselors and marriage and family therapists navigating Wisconsin's regulatory landscape and the current lawsuit.
For Wisconsin MFTs, this distinction is legally and ethically pivotal as the federal lawsuit challenges rules that may conflate the two.
Does a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision automatically void Wisconsin's therapy speech restrictions? Here is how the ruling in Chiles v. Salazar changed the legal landscape for LMFTs.
On March 31, 2026, the Supreme Court issued an 8-1 opinion in Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539, striking down Colorado's ban on conversion therapy as applied to talk therapy.1 The full citation is Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539, 2026 WL 872307 (U.S. Mar. 31, 2026).2 Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch held that Colorado's law was a content- and viewpoint-based regulation of speech, not merely a regulation of professional conduct.1
The majority reasoned that the statute targeted specific therapeutic conversations based on their subject matter and the perspective expressed. A therapist could discuss sexual orientation and gender identity with a client, but only if the therapist affirmed those identities; any conversation aimed at exploring change was grounds for discipline. That, the Court said, is textbook viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.1 The opinion emphasized that talk therapy consists of speech, and while states have broad authority over professional licensing, they cannot use that authority to suppress disfavored viewpoints.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed the lone dissent. She argued that the majority's reasoning could undermine states' traditional authority to regulate medical and mental health practice, potentially exposing vulnerable clients to unsafe care.1 The dissent warned that invalidating a ban on a specific therapeutic approach could make it harder for states to protect patients from practices they deem harmful.
The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) contends that Wis. Admin. Code § MPSW 20.02(25) is materially indistinguishable from the Colorado law, which was struck down as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.3 Both operate through licensing board discipline against therapists for the content of their speech. The Supreme Court's holding in Chiles v. Salazar makes clear that such regulations are presumptively unconstitutional.
Crucially, the ruling does not automatically invalidate Wisconsin's rule. The Court remanded the Colorado case for further proceedings under the correct First Amendment standard, and a separate federal lawsuit must now apply that precedent to Wisconsin's regulation.2 Until a court rules on the Koschnick-Buchman challenge, Wisconsin's unprofessional conduct rule remains in force, but its legal foundation has been severely weakened.
A complaint that is dismissed can safeguard an MFT's career, while a disciplinary order can trigger license revocation and professional ruin. Understanding how Wisconsin's licensing board handles alleged violations of MPSW 20.02(25)1 reveals why the lawsuit's preemptive filing matters.
The Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) handles complaints against marriage and family therapists.2 Once a complaint is received, the therapist is served with a Notice of Hearing and Complaint by certified mail and has 20 days to respond. Failure to cooperate within 30 days is itself unprofessional conduct.3 DSPS bears the burden of proof in a formal hearing governed by Wis. Admin. Code ch. SPS 2. A final decision includes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and an Order, which may impose sanctions.
Under Wis. Stat. ch. 457, sanctions range from a reprimand or practice limitations to suspension or full revocation.2 The board can also levy civil forfeitures and recover all investigation and hearing costs under SPS 2.18. Factors considered include the practitioner's rehabilitation potential, public protection, and deterrence. Even a temporary limitation can restrict a therapist's ability to serve clients.
To date, no published DSPS decision has enforced MPSW 20.02(25) against a licensee.4 The board has used its unprofessional conduct authority in other contexts, for example revoking a license for violation of MPSW 20.02(13) in a 2012 case, but never specifically for conversion therapy. This gap highlights why the plaintiffs filed preemptively: the rule exists, and a complaint could come at any time.
A disciplinary order can end an MFT's ability to bill insurance panels as an MFT, trigger malpractice coverage review, and cause lasting reputational damage. For Koschnick and Buchman, the mere threat of these outcomes chills their constitutionally protected speech, as the Supreme Court recognized in similar circumstances. The lawsuit's success would remove that threat for faith-integrated therapy.
Clients in Wisconsin absolutely retain the right to seek faith-based counseling, but what a therapist can lawfully provide under the current administrative rule is narrower than many realize. A client's request for Christ-centered therapy does not insulate a licensed marriage and family therapist from professional discipline if the board interprets the therapist's response as promoting an intervention to change sexual orientation or gender identity.
Wis. Admin. Code § MPSW 20.02(25) regulates the therapist's behavior, not the client's preferences. The rule declares it unprofessional conduct for a licensee to employ or promote any intervention intended to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. Even when a client explicitly asks for faith-integrated talk therapy, the board could view the therapist's use of prayer, scripture, or discussions of sexual ethics as falling within that prohibited category. The client's voluntary participation does not automatically shield the practitioner from a complaint or investigation.
While no regulation explicitly requires it, thoroughly documenting a client's informed consent becomes a prudent step for any MFT navigating this gray area. A written statement confirming that the client voluntarily seeks Christ-centered counseling, understands the nature of the therapy, and is not being coerced can show good faith. However, Wisconsin's rule does not contain a client-consent exception, so such documentation may not serve as a complete legal defense. The board retains discretion to determine whether the therapy crosses the line into a prohibited intervention, regardless of what the client signs. Understanding therapy approaches used by MFTs can help practitioners frame faith-integrated methods within recognized clinical modalities when documenting their work.
Until a court issues an injunction or final ruling, MPSW 20.02(25) remains enforceable. The Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services has not suspended enforcement, and the licensing board can still open investigations, impose sanctions, or restrict a therapist's practice. MFTs who continue to offer faith-based counseling should stay informed on the lawsuit's progress but operate under the assumption that the current interpretation stands until a court says otherwise.
After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Colorado's conversion therapy ban as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, states across the country began grappling with how to regulate mental health practice without violating therapists' First Amendment rights. The outcome for marriage and family therapists varies dramatically depending on where they are licensed. Some states enforce blanket restrictions on conversion therapy without religious carve-outs, while others are rethinking their approach in light of recent Supreme Court precedent.
Hawaii, Illinois, and New York all maintain broad bans on conversion therapy that cover licensed MFTs and offer no explicit accommodation for religiously motivated talk therapy.1 Under current rules, a therapist in these states who voluntarily discusses sexual orientation or gender identity with a client from a faith perspective could face disciplinary action, even if the client requests such counseling.2
In several states, however, these bans are facing significant legal pushback. Michigan's ban, passed in 2023, was blocked by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2025, preventing enforcement while the case proceeds.3 Virginia's ban was effectively gutted by a consent decree in 2025, limiting its reach.3 And Colorado, the origin of the Supreme Court precedent, has had its ban remanded for review under strict scrutiny, leaving its future uncertain.4
Meanwhile, a significant number of states have no conversion therapy restrictions at all, giving MFTs full freedom to integrate faith and clinical practice. This patchwork means that the legality of Christ-centered therapy depends heavily on geography, and the Wisconsin lawsuit could further tip the scales.
For Wisconsin LMFTs, the current rule remains enforceable even while the lawsuit proceeds, meaning licensed marriage and family therapists must carefully consider how they describe and provide faith-integrated services. Because Wis. Admin. Code § MPSW 20.02(25) classifies any intervention aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity as unprofessional conduct, even a consensual, talk-based approach that a client voluntarily seeks could trigger scrutiny if it is later interpreted as promoting such change. Practitioners who offer Christ-centered or other faith-based counseling should consult an attorney before advertising services or discussing therapeutic goals in ways that a licensing board might view as prohibited. The lawsuit does not suspend the rule, and the board retains full authority to investigate complaints and impose discipline while the courts deliberate.
For students now in MFT clinical internship programs, this lawsuit is a bellwether for how states will delineate protected therapeutic speech from prohibited conduct. Understanding the legal and ethical arguments is becoming part of professional competence. Whether the Wisconsin rule stands, falls, or is narrowed, future LMFTs will practice in a landscape shaped by this litigation. Coursework in ethics and professional identity should address the tension between religious accommodation and anti-discrimination principles, preparing graduates to navigate these conflicts without risking their licenses.
The Supreme Court's decision striking down a similar Colorado law as viewpoint discrimination applies nationally. MFTs outside Wisconsin should monitor their own state's regulatory posture, because rules written in broad language may now face similar constitutional challenges. Even in states without explicit conversion therapy bans, licensing boards may interpret general unprofessional conduct provisions to restrict faith-based counseling. Staying informed through professional associations and AAMFT approved supervisor networks and state regulatory updates is essential.
Regardless of the lawsuit's final outcome, the case will influence how licensing boards nationwide craft and enforce regulations on therapeutic speech. It sits at the intersection of licensure authority, First Amendment rights, and clinical ethics, raising questions that the MFT profession cannot ignore. Marriage and family therapists who integrate faith have long argued that client-directed, exploratory talk therapy is distinct from coercive change efforts. A ruling affirming that distinction could provide clearer safe harbors for religious practitioners. Conversely, a narrow ruling or prolonged ambiguity may chill legitimate religious practice. Professional associations, educators, and supervisors must help practitioners understand the evolving boundaries between ethical care and regulatory compliance.
The Wisconsin lawsuit over Christ-centered therapy has raised urgent questions for marriage and family therapists about the boundaries of faith-integrated practice. This FAQ addresses key concerns around regulatory restrictions, the difference between faith-based talk therapy and conversion therapy, and the impact of recent Supreme Court precedent on MFTs in Wisconsin.
