fail facially and as applied. He likewise argues that to the extent that AD-11-9 7 contains provisions requiring periodic review, those provisions are constitutionally inadequate, both facially and as applied. We disagree. 1. Facial Challenge: Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(c) on Procedural Due Process Grounds ¶ 56. We are satisfied that Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(c) is facially valid on procedural due process grounds for two primary reasons. ¶ 57. First, the statute requires that the court grant a conditional release hearing, which the committed person may request every six months. Wis. Stat. § 971.17(4). Although that review is not specific to the medication order, we are satisfied that it must necessarily include a review of the medication order. See, e.g., Anthony D.B., 237 Wis. 2d 1, ¶ 31 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 58. Second, we believe that other language
holding that an agencys reasonable reading of an ambiguous statute must be affirmed holding moot a constitutional challenge to a state statute governing the involuntary commitment of mentally ill minors because the law had been replaced with a different statute holding that by reading the statute governing involuntary medication of prisoners under ch 51 together with ch 980 a review of an order to compel medication is required holding that untimely provision of medication to hivpositive in mate did not cause sufficiently serious injury to give rise to an eighth amendment violation holding that review of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is under the de novo standard