The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider a contentious case from Colorado, which will scrutinize the legality of state and local prohibitions on conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ minors.
This pivotal case at the high court could determine the balance between counselors' free speech rights and the government’s role in controlling professional practices some say are harmful to children, as the Associated Press reports.
The case, which is scheduled for argument during the Supreme Court's October term, marks a significant development in the ongoing national debate over conversion therapy. Colorado, like approximately half of the states across the United States, has enacted laws that prohibit attempts to alter an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity through therapeutic practices. These laws aim to protect LGBTQ+ children from practices deemed harmful and ineffective by evidence-based research.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld Colorado’s ban, reinforcing the state's stance against conversion therapy. However, a contrasting decision from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta invalidated similar local bans in Florida. This inconsistency among circuit court rulings has paved the way for the Supreme Court to step in and provide clarity on the issue.
Representing the case on behalf of the Colorado counselor Kaley Chiles is Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative legal organization known for its involvement in high-profile social issue cases. The ADF claims that the Colorado law hinders Chiles from effectively serving her clients and exposes her to potential penalties such as fines and license suspension.
Chiles asserts that the regulation restricts her professional integrity, arguing that she does not aim to alter clients' sexual orientations or “cure” same-sex attractions. The basis of her appeal is a 2018 Supreme Court decision which favored anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers, underscoring a precedence of protecting certain free speech rights.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case occurs amid an era of heightened scrutiny and varying policies regarding LGBTQ+ rights. These include President Donald Trump’s actions that notably impact transgender rights, such as banning transgender military service and cutting federal funding for gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Additionally, the court recently heard but has not yet decided on a Tennessee case concerning bans on medical treatments for transgender minors, which signifies increased attention to issues surrounding LGBTQ+ youth in a professional and parental context.
The legal back-and-forth on the issue was highlighted by opposing views from federal appeals courts. Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Clarence Thomas have previously indicated a willingness to consider similar legal challenges, showing the court’s interest in these significant social matters.
Lawyers for Colorado maintain that the ban on conversion therapy is grounded in substantial evidence demonstrating its inefficacy and potential harm to young individuals. State lawmakers who enacted the ban aim to shield children from practices categorized as both damaging and unsafe. Conversely, ADF lawyer Jim Campbell contends that the law forced Chiles to forgo accepting certain clients, though details regarding the number of impacted clients remain undisclosed. Campbell emphasizes the importance of safeguarding professional freedom within therapeutic practices.
The upcoming Supreme Court arguments are likely to address fundamental questions regarding the intersection of free speech and state regulation. The resulting decision may establish critical precedents affecting state regulations across the nation, especially those related to the mental and physical health support provided to LGBTQ+ youth. The court's previous refusal to hear a similar case in 2023, despite varying circuit court rulings, sets a precedent for caution. Nevertheless, the inclusion of new arguments and increased national discourse on related issues could influence the court’s perspective in the present case.
As the judicial process unfolds, both supporters and detractors of conversion therapy bans are closely monitoring the potential outcomes. A decision against Colorado could embolden opponents of similar bans elsewhere, challenging the growing legislative trend against conversion therapy across numerous states.
Meanwhile, a ruling in support of Colorado’s law could affirm the authority of states to regulate professional conduct, bolstering protections for LGBTQ+ minors nationwide. It may also prompt a reconsideration of existing practices and challenges in other jurisdictions.
The decision's ramifications extend beyond Colorado, reflecting national attitudes toward LGBTQ+ treatment and rights. As the Supreme Court prepares to deliberate on this significant case, its decision will likely resonate throughout the United States, shaping future discourse on both free speech and protective state regulations.
