Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on 'conversion therapy' for LGBTQ+ kids [View all]LetMyPeopleVote
(179,822 posts)27. Deadline Legal Blog-Supreme Court sides with Christian counselor over Colorado on 'conversion therapy' for minors
Medical groups warned that efforts to change sexual orientation and gender identity are illegitimate, ineffective and can be especially harmful to minors.
Deadline: Legal Blog - Supreme Court sides with Christian counselor over Colorado on âconversion therapyâ for minors
— Lola Gayle (@lolagaylec.bsky.social) 2026-03-31T15:45:12.868Z
Medical groups warned that efforts to change sexual orientation and gender identity are illegitimate, ineffective and can be especially harmful to minors.
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-conversion-therapy-colorado
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a Christian counselor over Colorado in her challenge to the states ban on so-called conversion therapy for minors.
In an 8-1 ruling by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court said that the states law, as applied to talk therapy provided by the counselor, Kaley Chiles, conflicts with First Amendment principles because it regulates speech based on viewpoint. Gorsuch wrote that the amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.
About half the states in the country have banned or restricted the practice that aims to change a childs sexual orientation or gender identity.....
Focusing in on Chiles claim, Gorsuch called the question before the court a narrow one. Ms. Chiles does not question that Colorados law banning conversion therapy has some constitutionally sound applications, the Trump appointee wrote. He noted that she doesnt take issue with the states effort to prohibit physical interventions, but rather, she only provides talk therapy.
The problem, she argued, is that because the states law strikes at the heart of First Amendment speech protections, the lower courts didnt provide rigorous enough scrutiny against the state in her legal challenge. ....
Upholding the district courts ruling against Chiles, a divided appellate panel said the law only incidentally involves speech because counseling necessarily involves speech, but that the state isnt restricting her constitutional expression.
In other words, Ms. Chiless First Amendment right to freedom of speech is implicated under the MCTL [Minor Conversion Therapy Law], but it is not abridged, the panel majority said, over dissent from a judge who said the majoritys wordplay in distinguishing speech from conduct posed a serious threat to free speech.
The panel majority noted that Chiles remained free to share her views on conversion therapy, sexual orientation and gender identity; that she can criticize Colorado for restricting her administration of conversion therapy; that she can refer clients to other service providers, like religious ministers; and that she can provide conversion therapy to adult clients.
In an 8-1 ruling by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court said that the states law, as applied to talk therapy provided by the counselor, Kaley Chiles, conflicts with First Amendment principles because it regulates speech based on viewpoint. Gorsuch wrote that the amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.
About half the states in the country have banned or restricted the practice that aims to change a childs sexual orientation or gender identity.....
Focusing in on Chiles claim, Gorsuch called the question before the court a narrow one. Ms. Chiles does not question that Colorados law banning conversion therapy has some constitutionally sound applications, the Trump appointee wrote. He noted that she doesnt take issue with the states effort to prohibit physical interventions, but rather, she only provides talk therapy.
The problem, she argued, is that because the states law strikes at the heart of First Amendment speech protections, the lower courts didnt provide rigorous enough scrutiny against the state in her legal challenge. ....
Upholding the district courts ruling against Chiles, a divided appellate panel said the law only incidentally involves speech because counseling necessarily involves speech, but that the state isnt restricting her constitutional expression.
In other words, Ms. Chiless First Amendment right to freedom of speech is implicated under the MCTL [Minor Conversion Therapy Law], but it is not abridged, the panel majority said, over dissent from a judge who said the majoritys wordplay in distinguishing speech from conduct posed a serious threat to free speech.
The panel majority noted that Chiles remained free to share her views on conversion therapy, sexual orientation and gender identity; that she can criticize Colorado for restricting her administration of conversion therapy; that she can refer clients to other service providers, like religious ministers; and that she can provide conversion therapy to adult clients.
I feel a little better. Talk therapy is not the same as the torture methods used in many forms of conversion therapy. Other forms of conversion therapy are still illegal.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
30 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on 'conversion therapy' for LGBTQ+ kids [View all]
BumRushDaShow
10 hrs ago
OP
I don't know that there's a live case coming through the courts that would challenge Obergefell
Prairie Gates
8 hrs ago
#15
I could accept this, though not like it, if this principle were being applied anything like equally
dsc
10 hrs ago
#3
This is an excerpt from the Kagan & Sotomayor concurring opinion. Justice Kagan authored it & Justice Sotomayor joined.
24601
9 hrs ago
#6
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is "only speech" as well, but it is regulated.
SunSeeker
8 hrs ago
#16
WTF? It is not a Free Speech question. It is a medical, sociological, and ethical question.
Martin68
8 hrs ago
#10
If that is what the decision is based on, then it does seem reasonable to me. As long as advice is freely requested and
Martin68
7 hrs ago
#22
Many of the people undergoing conversion therapy are minors forced by their bigoted Christian parents.
Lonestarblue
6 hrs ago
#26
Deadline Legal Blog-Supreme Court sides with Christian counselor over Colorado on 'conversion therapy' for minors
LetMyPeopleVote
6 hrs ago
#27
Deadline Legal Blog-Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson steps out alone, again - this time on 'conversion therapy'
LetMyPeopleVote
5 hrs ago
#28