SCOTUS rules 8-1 against anti-conversion therapy laws as First Amendment violations
It’s a mark of how vile these laws are that the only dissent was Justice Jackson. From the Gorsuch-written opinion:
Ms. Chiles [a therapist] does not question that Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy has some constitutionally sound applications. See Brief for Petitioner 53. She does not take issue with the State’s effort to prohibit what she herself calls “long-abandoned, aversive” physical interventions. Instead, Ms. Chiles stresses that she provides only talk therapy, employing no physical techniques or medications. Yet, she argues, Colorado’s law still applies to her, prescribing what she may say in “voluntary counseling conversations” with her clients. And because that application of the law strikes at the heart of the First Amendment’s protections for free speech, she contends, it warrants considerably more searching scrutiny than the rational-basis review the Tenth Circuit applied in this case or the intermediate-scrutiny review some other lower courts have employed in cases like hers.
I have written two fairly lengthy posts on the subject of these laws, so I’m not sure there’s much more to add except that I strongly believe this was the right decision and long overdue. My first post on the subject was in 2013, when New Jersey passed such a law (and Governor Christie signed it). An excerpt:
It is no use pretending that therapy—and the licensing of therapists by the state—is not at least partly a political endeavor subject to political fashion rather than a science. Nor should therapists be completely unrestricted. For example, therapists are already prohibited from sexual contact with patients—even willing patients, even adult patients—because it is considered inherently exploitative. But the most harmful practices that could be used by conversion therapists (for example, electric shock) could be banned without banning the entire enterprise. And as the articles point out, mainstream therapy organizations have already condemned conversion therapy and do not advocate it.
But apparently none of that would be enough for the advocates of this bill; the therapy itself must be defined by the government as inherently and unfailingly abusive (what’s next, taking children away from parents who don’t applaud and celebrate their gayness?) As the nanny state grows, so will these essentially political moves by the government. This bill opens the door for a host of governmental abuses in which the state dictates the enforcement of politically correct thought through the mechanism of so-called therapy, and therapists become the instruments by which the public is indoctrinated in what is currently politically acceptable and what is verboten.
The present ruling arrests that trend at least somewhat. It is encouraging that even two of the liberal justices voted with the majority.
My other previous post on the subject can be found here. It is about the Colorado law. An excerpt:
I have some retired therapist friends who are Democrats, and a few years ago when I told them that anything other than “gender-affirming” therapy was discouraged or even sometimes banned they were aghast. That’s how quickly the policies have changed, and how radically.
What is banned under the Colorado law is described this way: “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” That’s pretty darn broad.
You’ll notice how the manifestations of our professional managerial class in state legislatures react to the talking cure for dissatisfied homosexuals in contrast to how they react to poisoning people with hormones and surgical mutilation of genitals. So much social policy is influenced by status considerations and social fashion.
==
Other characters properly in the dock: those on the boards of professional guilds and those employed as hospital administrators.
==
I have to say I’m stunned that the Supreme Court offered a nearly unanimous decision.
Lincoln, NE has a similar law. When it passed, I knew it was unconstitutional.
In fact, I just sent the SCOTUS opinion to the Lincoln City Attorney and told him to have the ordinance repealed.
The Dems love to censor those that don’t agree with them. Dems hate democracy.
Lincoln, NE has a similar law. When it passed, I knew it was unconstitutional.
==
The regulatory authority of local government councils should extend to questions of land use (public and private) and nuisance abatement and no farther.
its a rare instance when they get something absolutely right, of course the dissenters see nothing wrong with persuading impressionable youths with engaging in physically disfiguring procedures, (what is dubbed gender affirming care) the madness seems to be in repose at this time,
the lysenkoism of this period, but it seems tht some sanity has set in even across the pond, even though the insanity continues elsewhere
The Dems love to censor those that don’t agree with them. Dems hate democracy.
So very true. Many of the hard core left have no problem with vote fraud, and yet expect us to believe them when they claim that they are stalwarts of democracy.
Very good ruling, would have been great if unanimous. Most MAGA folk would oppose laws that restrict speech to adults, even heretical, vulgar, offensive, & insulting words, tho Fighting Words might still be considered so provocative that a physical reaction might be justified.
My opinion is that Words Can Never Hurt Me so much that violence is justified.
Also, some censorship to protect children is better than total adult free speech.
Tangential I know…but related…
https://www.outkick.com/sports/christian-athletes-rally-behind-jaden-ivey-after-bulls-cut-him-over-religious-beliefs
According to ChatGPT Americans are spending record amounts of money on mental health treatment per year.
* 2000: ~$100B
* Current: ~300B
* Current: ~100B on therapy
* Sharp increase from the Covid years on.
I didn’t realize these numbers were going up so fast.
OMB makes life awful for AWFLs?
@huxley:I didn’t realize these numbers were going up so fast.
Because of how state and Federal government have incented changes in how its paid. Not easy to sum up.
The difference between mental health care and physical health care is who and how providers are paid, it’s not really what’s wrong with the person. For example, if a schizophrenic is prescribed drugs to treat their schizophrenia, or an addict is prescribed drugs to treat their addiction, that’s “physical health” care because a pharmacy is getting paid.
Mental health care providers have long got the short end of the stick on payments, and that affects access to care, so state and Federal governments have been pushing payment models that address the disparity.
I don’t know the details in every state, just how it’s played out in my own. The State of Washington is by far the largest purchaser in the state: there’s the state employee benefits system and the 800-lb gorilla that is Medicaid managed care. They also happen to be the health care and health insurance regulator. Using various carrots and sticks they’ve pushed more payments to mental health providers over the last ten years.
The higher dollar amounts are no doubt a combination of increased utilization of services as well as paying more per service.
The lunatics are funding the non- asylum.
For the greater good.
KJB is a flaming hypocrite. The alternative theory, with plenty of evidence to support it, is that she’s too stupid to realize her hypocrisy.
Last year, in the case of states banning “gender-affirming” butchery on minors, she declared that states have NO power to restrict medical practice.
This year, not so much.
She’s exhibit #1 for the proposition that judges decide cases on what outcome they like, then find some legal justification for their own prejudices.
Art Deco:
My very first thought when I learned what Lincoln did was that the City has no power to regulate the medical profession.
“ Americans are spending record amounts of money on mental health treatment”
It doesn’t seem to be helping.
Relatedly before SCOTUS, Constitutional Law Prof Randy Barnett weighs in on birthright citizenship at the Wall Street Journal.
“Trump Is Right on Birthright Citizenship; The 14th Amendment’s authors would exclude illegal and visiting aliens from U.S. ‘jurisdiction.’” ARCHIVED post HERE https://archive.is/JxPh9
(H/T, Instapundit)
“I’m mad as hell and i ain’t goin’ to take it anymore”. This applies to the self-arrogant, self-serving leftist doofusses out there who do their damndest to shove orgasms uber alles down our throats. Why are they always leftists?
I may have this backwards, but with negatives upon negatives, I am not sure.
Conversion therapy is the activity to try to change a homosexual’s outlook back to heterosexuality; or a person claiming transgender orientation back to aligning their “gender feelings” with their biological sex at birth? Right?
So an anti-conversion law is trying to make that illegal and not allowed to be performed or attempted. I.e., let the person alone to be as they claim to be or wish to be [but possibly only after they reach adulthood and are considered responsible for their own decisions].
So conservatives and Christians (in general) prefer and promote the use of conversion therapy; while the leftists and (from our perspectives the nut jobs) prefer these anti-conversion laws.
Do I have that right?
But for the somewhat limited case of a therapist whose only interaction with her “patient” is voice to voice persuasion (no chemicals, no surgery recommendations, etc.), this can be interpretated as interfering with her 1st Amendment free speech rights: being able to say and pronounce any wisdom or nonsense that is not inciteful to violence, etc. [So part of the issue is whether doing so still does or might lead to eventual harm to said patient?]
Thus, here the Court has ruled 8-1 in favor of her claim of free speech rights on her free speech grounds [and may not be taking any position on the merits or flaws of such conversion therapy, per se? Let alone any other more drastic treatment options being allowed or outlawed?]
The real reason I am trying to understand this is that is seems to me to have a relationship to, and potential impact on, Florida’s Anti-woke Law [which I currently understand is still in some process of litigation towards the SC?]. While public K-12 schooling can be controlled by legislative dictates as surrogates for the citizenry and parents concerning the education content provided to the students, there may (or may not be?) a more liberal allowance when it comes to college level courses taught by publicly funded instructors and professors who might have differing views. Are their free speech rights being curtained unconstitutionally when they are in the classroom and subject to this legislative “guidance”? [Presumably in non-educational situations an employee is expected to abide by his employer’s guidance on how and what to say when (and possibly even when not at work), all as part of his employee status. He he disagrees enough, he should quit.
But if a paid therapist’s language cannot be restrained, on what grounds can a college level educator’s be? Admittedly, the patient is paying directly or indirectly for the therapy services, so the two situations may not align that closely when it comes to remuneration. Then again, a student is also paying tuition, in addition to the state’s taxes paying the educator?
Any clarification, correction, of the above is welcome.
@ John Guilfoyle
Thanks for the Jaden Ivey link!
R2L is not understanding at all but obviously not from the US. Drop colleges, education, and outside issues out of this argument. Here is a simple explanation:
A therapist puts out an ad that they provide conversion therapy. If someone doesn’t want it, they ignore it. If someone voluntarily says ‘I want to try it’, they book an appointment, pay their money, and try the therapy. Think of it like a barber. If you don’t like their styling, no one forces anyone to go. If you want to try it, no one stops you. This is called ‘freedom’ since everything is voluntary, no one is forcing anything. Does it work? That question can be asked of all therapies, and therapy does for some what prayer might do for others as the human mind is not well understood. But the US is a free country so whether its prayer or therapy that you think works, we have the freedom to try it.
Now ‘liberals’ don’t like freedom. Their ideas can never win, so they use force and coercion to win debate. In this case the liberals wanted to outlaw conversion therapy instead of allowing people to try it on their own, or just ignore it and go about their own business. So this law to ban conversion therapy was overturned and it can be offered. If someone doesn’t like it, they just ignore it like the bad hairdresser.
Hope this helps. The trick is to ask if you think the government can control what two people say to one another in a private room (a therapy session). If you are a liberal the answer is ‘yes’ because liberals want to control everyone.
Contra Whatever, I think R2L might be onto something. The new ruling does not appear to be limited to medicine, and could be applied to education. A result of this ruling might be: A teacher’s words could not be legislated by viewpoint bias. (Not eloquently stated, I know.)
Here’s the decision: “ Held: Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, as applied to Ms. Chiles’s talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny.”
Maybe CHILES could be even more easily applied in education. Here in MN, we are entering an era where teachers are forced to indoctrinate children into the leftist revolutionary mindset. Doesn’t that go against CHILES?
Using various carrots and sticks they’ve pushed more payments to mental health providers over the last ten years.
==
Which they shouldn’t do. The stock in trade of clinical social workers and counselors is self-improvement programs, not medicine or surgery. Psychiatrists and psychologists are a mixed bunch, because some of their time is occupied with supervising people with schizophreniform disorders, dementia, sleep disorders, and brain injuries. Plastic surgeons, dermatologists, and dentists do cosmetic procedures (for which they should seldom be compensated by insurance companies).
Here in MN, we are entering an era where teachers are forced to indoctrinate children into the leftist revolutionary mindset. Doesn’t that go against CHILES?
==
IMO, it would not be a free speech issue, but one if misappropriation of public resources. Leftists want to take your money and compel your children to listen to their malicious drivel.
the left has seized the commanding heights of media academia and some corners of government,
remember it became with acceptance of a disorder, but it graduated to compulsion, ‘bake the cake’ with the codicil, that if you refuse, they will remove your children from you, because you are unperson, this is true even in some corners of otherwise red texas,
so we are talking about changing behavior, which leftist have no qualms about, see the regretable and tragic circumstances of 2020-1, re a certain reprobate who became a symbol, also certain non sensical therapeutc practices,
“But if a paid therapist’s language cannot be restrained, on what grounds can a college level educator’s be? ”
I don’t know the specifics of the FL law, but one distinction would be state vs private universities. If the state is funding the university it has a right, presumably, to constrain how professors teach. Maybe not for private universities, except to the extent they get state funding.
— neo
Possibly, but I consider it much more likely that it’s the result of horse-trading. The liberal Justices traded their support on this for the other Justices acquiescence on something. Jackson could either be too stubborn/stupid/whatever to go along or she might be allowed to ‘vote her conscience’ for PR purposes.
I think that has several reasons.
One of them (by no means the only one) it that a considerable percentage of what is being called ‘mental illness’ is in fact simply internalized unrealistic expectations about life. People have been conditioned to expect certain things, from relationships, from the opposite sex, from employers and work/careers, from life in general, that are just not practical/realistic. They then ask themselves what’s wrong with them that they can’t be happy.
No therapy or treatment will alter this except adjusting expectations into line with reality, and that hurts. It probably hurts worse the older you get, if you don’t make the adjustments in childhood/teenage/early 20s, because it means admitting that you’ve wasted a lot of time and energy (both of which each person has a finite supply of) in pursuit of impossibility, and probably in so doing missed out on real opportunities and real happiness that you could have had.
It’s a classic ‘sunk cost fallacy’ but it makes it hard to change.
Be interesting to know how many of these confused young people weren’t confused until an enthusiast got hold of them; teacher, counselor, progressive parent, etc.
Richard Aubrey on April 1, 2026 at 5:34 pm:
“Be interesting to know how many of these confused young people weren’t confused until an enthusiast got hold of them; teacher, counselor, progressive parent, etc.”
I also had the thought that perhaps the influence was totally accidental and basically benign. For example, when one or more siblings came along, the older child/children were, or felt they were, put at lower status in regard to the level of parental attention they had previously experienced.
Even if the parents try to be, or believe they are being, equally loving to all of their children, the child may not feel that way.
Jim Melcher on April 1, 2026 at 8:40 am:
“Contra Whatever, I think R2L might be onto something.” Thank you for a proper interpretation of my comment. In regard to commenter Whatever, … well, whatever.
Three of my grandparents, my parents, and I were all born in the USA; and I have been a resident/ citizen of FL for over 40 years – hence my interest in that angle of my query.
R2L
I am two years older than my brother and six older than my sister. To the extent I can recall any difference in treatment, it was either age-appropriate or maybe I was supposed to be looking out for them in various circumstances.
Our son is eight minutes older than our daughter–every girl should have a big brother and so the age interval issue doesn’t apply.
Our granddaughters are two years apart and vastly different in interests, skills, and world views, thus requiring different kinds of attention.
Not sure it’s the age-interval thing unless the parents manage it in a pretty counterproductive manner.