Supreme Court Signals Potential First Amendment Concerns with “Conversion Therapy” Bans
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court appeared receptive to arguments challenging state laws restricting talk therapy aimed at addressing unwanted same-sex attraction or gender identity in minors, suggesting the measures may violate the First Amendment. Justices across the ideological spectrum voiced concerns during oral arguments Tuesday regarding a Colorado law prohibiting licensed counselors from providing such therapy.
The case, Chiles v.Salazar, stems from a lawsuit filed by Kaley chiles, a counselor in colorado Springs who identifies as an evangelical Christian.Chiles argues the law infringes on her right to free speech by censoring conversations with clients. She maintains she does not attempt to “cure” individuals of their sexual orientation or gender identity, but wishes to be able to explore a client’s feelings if they express a desire to understand or change them.
Colorado, along with over 20 other states, enacted thes laws in response to historically harmful and discredited practices associated with “conversion therapy,” some of which involved physically abusive techniques like induced nausea, vomiting, or electric shock. Lawmakers and medical experts have asserted these practices are ineffective, cruel, and can cause lasting psychological damage.
However, several justices questioned the scope of the Colorado law, focusing on its regulation of speech. Justice Samuel Alito jr. stated the law regulates “pure speech,” and highlighted what he perceived as a double standard. He pointed out the law would penalize a counselor for assisting a teen wanting to reduce same-sex attraction, but not for assisting a teen wanting to affirm it.
justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor also expressed reservations. Kagan acknowledged a potential First Amendment violation, while Sotomayor noted the limited evidence demonstrating harm solely from talk therapy.
Shannon stevenson, Colorado’s state solicitor, defended the law, clarifying it applies only to licensed counselors and does not extend to religious ministers.she argued that medical practice is a heavily regulated field and that professionals do not have a constitutional right to provide substandard or harmful advice.
Despite this defense, Justices, including Amy Coney barrett, suggested that even if the court finds the law unconstitutional, counselors could still be subject to medical malpractice lawsuits.
The court’s questioning suggests a likely ruling in favor of the counselors, perhaps limiting states’ ability to regulate speech within the context of licensed counseling sessions related to sexual orientation and gender identity. A decision is expected in the coming months.
