LGBT ‘conversion therapy’ ban unconstitutional, ‘very easy’ call for SCOTUS: expert
The U.S. Supreme Court this week decided to take up a case challenging a Colorado law banning so-called “conversion therapy” after a licensed Christian therapist, Kaley Chiles, claimed the law violated her First Amendment rights. The case, known as Chiles v. Salazar, has sparked a debate over the balance between free speech and mental health care.
Less than two years ago, the Supreme Court declined to hear a similar case challenging a law in Washington state that prohibited licensed therapists from practicing “conversion therapy” on minors. However, conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh expressed dissent, indicating that they would have granted a review of the case.
In the current case, the Supreme Court highlighted Chiles’ beliefs as a practicing Christian, stating that she believes people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex. Many of her clients seek her counsel based on their faith and relationship with God, but Colorado’s law prohibits these conversations due to the viewpoints they express.
The central question to be considered in the upcoming oral arguments is whether the law regulating certain conversations between counselors and clients based on expressed viewpoints constitutes a violation of the Free Speech Clause. Legal scholars and experts have pointed out that the law may infringe on the First Amendment rights of counselors and limit access to mental health care.
The Colorado law, enacted in 2019, specifically prevents mental health professionals from engaging in “conversion therapy” with minors. It defines “conversion therapy” as any practice or treatment that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The legislation excludes counseling that helps individuals explore their gender identity or cope with personal challenges, as long as it does not aim to alter their sexual orientation or gender identity.
While the Colorado Attorney General’s Office has filed an amicus brief in support of the state’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law, critics argue that laws prohibiting “conversion therapy” infringe on free speech rights and adversely impact mental health care access. Despite the growing cultural and political divide on gender ideology issues, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case signals a nuanced approach to balancing constitutional rights and public policy concerns.
In a broader context, the Supreme Court’s recent acceptance of cases related to LGBT issues reflects ongoing debates in society and legal circles. While some high-profile petitions were declined last week, including Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic firearms and Rhode Island’s ban on high-capacity magazines, the Court’s decision to address the Colorado “conversion therapy” law underscores the complex intersection of free speech, mental health care, and gender identity rights.
As the case unfolds, legal experts and advocates will closely monitor the Supreme Court’s deliberations and eventual ruling on Chiles v. Salazar. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the rights of counselors, the protection of free speech, and the regulation of mental health practices in the United States.
