court

Supreme Court Questions Colorado Law in Frist amendment Case Over Talk Therapy for Minors

Washington, D.C. – The Supreme Court appeared deeply skeptical ‍of Colorado’s defense of a law restricting talk therapy for minors experiencing unwanted same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria,with justices from⁢ across the ideological spectrum questioning whether the state engaged in viewpoint discrimination. The⁢ case, heard this week, centers on whether the law violates​ the First Amendment rights of therapists.

During oral arguments,Justice Amy Coney⁢ Barrett‌ directly challenged Colorado’s Solicitor General,pressing whether the state was simply “picking a ‌side” in a debate within the medical community. Barrett pointed to similar cases, like Skrmetti in Tennessee, where states have chosen to ​support different approaches to treatment. “Your position​ is that⁣ rational basis ⁢applies?” she ​asked, referencing the lowest level of judicial review.

Though,⁢ legal analyst kimberly reichard of WORLD Radio’s Legal Docket notes that accepting a rational basis standard would essentially concede⁢ that viewpoint discrimination⁣ is permissible, a position the state quickly⁢ attempted to distance itself from. ⁢The state then​ argued the relevant issue​ was the⁢ standard of care, but Justice Barrett pressed for a direct​ answer to her initial question.

“No,” responded Colorado’s Solicitor General Stevenson, a⁣ response that Reichard says ‌likely raised the stakes, triggering a higher level of scrutiny for the state to meet. The Supreme Court has previously ruled ​that content-based regulation of professional ‍speech requires strict scrutiny.

Justice Samuel Alito highlighted the core of the dispute, framing it as a conflict between allowing minors to pursue ⁤therapy to ‌overcome same-sex attraction and denying ⁤them that option, even if they desire it. “Looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination,” ‍Alito stated. Justice Elena Kagan echoed this sentiment, agreeing that the⁢ law appeared to be viewpoint​ discrimination “in the way we would⁢ normally understand viewpoint discrimination.”

The‌ unusual ‍alignment of ⁢conservative and ⁢liberal justices suggests a potential challenge to the Colorado law. Legal scholar Eugene Volokh,a ‍First Amendment expert,warned against the lower courts’ attempt to redefine the therapy as “conduct” rather than “speech.” “That just ‍sounds to me like an⁢ argument by relabeling,” Volokh told WORLD Radio. he cautioned that accepting this logic could jeopardize First Amendment protections for ‌other forms⁣ of expression.

Reichard predicts free speech will ultimately prevail, though a unanimous‍ decision is unlikely, with one or two ⁣liberal justices potentially ⁣dissenting. The Court’s decision is expected to have significant implications for the scope of⁤ First Amendment protections for‍ professional speech and the regulation of therapeutic practices.

Disclaimer: WORLD radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not​ be in its ⁣final form and​ might potentially be updated or revised in the ⁣future.Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.