A Consequential Supreme Court Term Begins With a Conversion Therapy Case

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court considered a challenge to Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors.
The core legal argument centered on whether conversion therapy constitutes protected speech or regulatable medical practice.
Justices scrutinized the evidence of harm and the reliability of medical consensus regarding conversion therapy.
The Court deliberated on potential viewpoint discrimination if the law allows affirming but prohibits changing sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court began its new term by hearing a case challenging Colorado's 2019 ban on conversion therapy for minors.
The ban prohibits practices attempting to change a minor's gender expression or eliminate same-sex attraction, deemed ineffective and harmful.
Therapist Kaylee Childs challenged the ban, arguing it infringes on her First Amendment free speech rights regarding voluntary conversations.
The conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom represents Childs, citing previous First Amendment victories.

The therapist's lawyer argued Colorado is censoring speech by forbidding voluntary talk therapy aimed at changing a minor's disfavored goals.
A central argument asserts that conversion therapy, when conducted through talk, is protected speech, distinct from medical interventions.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Gatanji Brown Jackson pressed the lawyer on distinguishing talk therapy from regulatable medical practice.
The lawyer contended Colorado's law targets speech, not medication, and thus cannot satisfy heightened scrutiny without sufficient justification.

Justice Alito questioned Colorado's lawyer with a hypothetical: a therapist can affirm a patient's gay identity but not help them change it, suggesting viewpoint discrimination.
Justice Kagan aligned with Justice Alito's concerns, indicating the court is grappling with First Amendment implications regarding speech restrictions.
Colorado's lawyer argued the ban targets harmful clinical treatment by licensed professionals, distinguishing it from protected speech or religious ministries.
The Solicitor General asserted the state's authority to regulate licensed healthcare professionals based on conduct, not speech.

The therapist's lawyer challenged studies cited by Colorado as 'weak' and biased, arguing they fail to differentiate voluntary talk therapy.
Colorado's lawyer cited a study of over 34,000 individuals, aged 13-25, showing a two-fold increase in attempted suicides among those who underwent the therapy.
Major medical associations, including the AMA and APA, maintain that attempts to change sexual orientation are harmful to young people.
An emerging debate, particularly regarding gender identity, suggests some therapists are re-evaluating potential benefits of such therapy.

Justice Samuel Alito questioned if medical consensus can be politicized, referencing 1920s eugenics as an example of fallible medical views.
Justice Gorsuch noted that in the 1970s, medical consensus classified homosexuality as a mental illness, challenging the reliability of evolving expert opinions.
This case fits a pattern of the Supreme Court confronting significant 'culture war' issues at the intersection of law and science.
The discussion draws parallels to a previous term's case on gender-affirming care for minors, signaling potential implications for LGBTQ+ rights.

Two potential paths for the court's decision emerged: sending the case back to a lower court for further review or directly striking down the law as unconstitutional.
The inclusion of a liberal justice in a majority decision could lead to the former outcome, indicating a more cautious approach.
The case is seen as fitting into a pattern of conservative rulings from the current Supreme Court, potentially advancing a conservative cultural agenda.
The ruling will have implications for over 20 states with similar bans on conversion therapy for minors.