The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a significant blow to efforts to protect LGBTQ+ youth, ruling against a Colorado law that banned “conversion therapy” – practices aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The 8-1 decision, rooted in First Amendment concerns, casts doubt on the legality of similar bans in the roughly two dozen states that have enacted them. The case centers on the argument that restricting talk therapy constitutes censorship, even when that therapy is widely discredited by medical and psychological experts and linked to significant harm.
At the heart of the dispute is the case of Allison R. Morgan and ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner, representing counselor Kaley Chiles, who provides faith-based counseling to clients struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. Chiles argued that the Colorado law infringed upon her right to free speech and her ability to offer support to clients seeking help. The court sided with Chiles, finding that the law’s restrictions on speech based on viewpoint were unconstitutional. This ruling doesn’t necessarily endorse the practice of conversion therapy, but it does establish a high legal bar for states seeking to regulate it.
First Amendment Concerns Take Center Stage
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, emphasized the importance of protecting free speech, even when the ideas expressed are controversial or unpopular. He stated that the law “censors speech based on viewpoint,” and that the First Amendment “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.” The decision highlights a growing trend within the court to prioritize free speech rights, even when those rights clash with efforts to protect vulnerable populations. Notably, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joined Gorsuch’s opinion, suggesting a broader consensus on the First Amendment implications of the case.
Justice Kagan, in a concurring opinion, pointed out the symmetry of the issue. She wrote that a state could not constitutionally ban talk therapy designed to affirm a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, arguing that suppressing one side of a debate while aiding the other is a clear violation of the First Amendment. This underscores the court’s concern about government intervention in the realm of ideas and beliefs.
Dissent Highlights Risks to Healthcare Regulation
The sole dissenting voice came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who warned that the ruling could have far-reaching consequences for states’ ability to regulate healthcare. Jackson argued that states have a legitimate interest in protecting the well-being of their citizens, including minors, and that this interest should outweigh concerns about incidental restrictions on speech. She cautioned that the decision “opens a dangerous can of worms” and “threatens to impair states’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect.”
This dissent reflects a fundamental disagreement about the scope of state power to regulate healthcare practices. Jackson’s argument centers on the idea that therapy, as a form of healthcare, is subject to reasonable regulation, even if that regulation incidentally affects speech. The majority, however, prioritized the First Amendment rights of the counselor, even in the context of a therapeutic relationship.
What is “Conversion Therapy” and Why is it Controversial?
“Conversion therapy” encompasses a range of practices that attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. These practices have historically included harmful and discredited methods like electroshock therapy and aversion therapy, but increasingly involve talk therapy aimed at altering beliefs and feelings. Major medical and psychological organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association, have condemned conversion therapy, citing its lack of scientific basis and the significant psychological harm it can cause. The American Psychological Association details the harms of conversion therapy, including depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.
Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights argue that conversion therapy is a form of abuse that perpetuates stigma and discrimination. They emphasize that sexual orientation and gender identity are not illnesses to be cured, but rather natural variations of human experience. The Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, tracks state laws related to conversion therapy and reports that 23 states, plus the District of Columbia, have laws protecting minors from the practice, with another four having some restrictions.
Impact and Next Steps
The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to have a ripple effect across the country, potentially invalidating similar bans in other states. While the ruling doesn’t explicitly legalize conversion therapy, it significantly raises the legal hurdles for states seeking to regulate it. The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Chiles, has been actively challenging these bans in several states, and this ruling provides them with a significant legal victory.
Polly Crozier, director of family policy at GLAD Law, condemned the ruling, stating, “Today’s decision does not change the science, and it does not change the fact that conversion therapists who harm patients will still face legal consequences.” However, the practical effect of the ruling is likely to be a chilling effect on efforts to protect LGBTQ+ youth from harmful practices.
The case will now be remanded to a lower court to determine whether the Colorado law meets a strict legal standard known as “strict scrutiny,” which requires the state to demonstrate a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Given the court’s emphasis on free speech, It’s unlikely that the law will survive this scrutiny. The next step will be the lower court’s re-evaluation of the law in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.
This ruling underscores the ongoing tension between free speech rights and the protection of vulnerable populations. It also highlights the increasing influence of conservative legal groups in shaping the legal landscape surrounding LGBTQ+ rights. Readers seeking support or information about LGBTQ+ issues can find resources at The Trevor Project and GLSEN.
What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court’s decision? Share your perspective in the comments below, and please share this article with your network.
