Supreme Court Appears Ready To Strike Down Conversion Therapy Ban

Twenty-seven states have prohibited the practice…

It is too early to say definitively how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy,” but a Tuesday report from The New York Times suggested that, based on arguments and the justices’ posture, many observers believe the Court may be leaning toward striking it down.

The case, Chiles v. Salazar (Docket No. 24-539), challenges Colorado’s 2019 law barring licensed mental health professionals from providing “conversion therapy” to minors — practices aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. The statute explicitly exempts religious ministry counseling, applying only to licensed practitioners. (RELATED: Schools Should Teach Reading, Not Gender Theories, And Restrooms Should Protect Kids)

At issue is whether the law regulates professional conduct — which may incidentally involve speech — or imposes an impermissible, content-based restriction on speech. Petitioner Mary Chiles argues the law censors her viewpoint and prevents her from offering therapeutic counseling consistent with her religious beliefs.

The 10th Circuit upheld the statute, finding that it governs professional conduct, not pure speech, and thus is subject only to rational-basis review. But during oral arguments, several conservative justices questioned whether the law crosses into viewpoint discrimination by restricting what counselors may say. (RELATED: The Supreme Court Must Clarify Birthright Citizenship, Trump Is Right To Force The Question)

The Times continues:

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Tuesday seemed poised to rule for a Christian therapist who says her free speech rights are violated by a Colorado law barring mental health professionals from seeking to change a teenager’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

In a lively argument, which lasted an hour and a half, the justices debated whether the so-called conversion therapy covered by Colorado’s law causes harm to minors. Lawyers for the therapist and the Trump administration said there were no studies indicating such therapy causes harm. The state’s lawyer countered that there is a “mountain of evidence” that conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful.

Medical organizations began to speak out against the practice in the late 1990s, citing a growing body of research that it was ineffective and potentially harmful.

The court’s decision, expected by June, will have implications for the more than 20 other states that have similar laws.

The case is testing the boundaries between free speech protections and the state’s ability to regulate professional practices. A ruling against the law could weaken similar bans in other states and expand the scope of First Amendment protection for professional speech. A ruling upholding it would affirm state power to restrict certain therapeutic practices in the interest of protecting minors.

READ NEXT: The Plan To FINALLY Stop Rogue Judges