By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court has ruled against Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ youth, finding it raises free speech concerns under the First Amendment. In an 8-1 decision, the majority sided with a Christian counselor who argued the law censors speech based on viewpoint. This ruling is expected to impact similar laws in other states, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing states should be able to regulate healthcare.
Read the original article here
The Supreme Court has delivered a significant ruling concerning Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ youth, and it’s a decision that has certainly sparked a lot of discussion. At its heart, the Court’s majority found that the Colorado law, which aimed to prohibit therapists from attempting to change a young person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, infringes upon free speech rights. The crucial point of contention was that the law was interpreted as regulating speech based on its viewpoint – essentially, it was seen as restricting certain messages or opinions that a therapist could express to a client.
This ruling, authored by Justice Gorsuch and joined by a broad coalition of eight justices, sent the case back to a lower court for further review. The majority agreed that the law indeed raises free speech concerns, a legal standard that, when applied, requires a very strong justification from the state. This latest decision is part of a recent pattern where the Court has often sided with claims of religious discrimination while showing increased skepticism toward LGBTQ+ rights.
The argument presented in favor of the counselor challenging the law was that it wrongly prevented them from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy, even for minors. This perspective suggests a belief that parents and individuals should have the freedom to pursue such counseling without state interference. However, a significant counter-argument, and one echoed by many who are dismayed by this outcome, is that any form of therapy aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity is inherently harmful and constitutes abuse, regardless of whether it’s voluntary. The notion of “voluntary therapy” when applied to children is particularly contentious, as many argue that children are not fully autonomous individuals capable of making such profound decisions about their identities without undue influence from adults.
It’s important to clarify what this ruling specifically addresses. The decision primarily concerns “talk therapy” or “conversational therapy.” It does not invalidate Colorado’s law entirely, nor does it permit forms of conversion therapy that involve physical interventions, which are widely recognized as abuse. Instead, the Court has mandated that such laws must pass a rigorous legal test known as strict scrutiny. This means the state would have to demonstrate a compelling interest in banning this type of therapy and show that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
The 8-1 vote is a notable aspect of this decision, highlighting that it wasn’t a simple ideological split along liberal and conservative lines. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter, emphasizing the deeply held concerns about the implications of this ruling. The fact that Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, often considered liberal, joined the majority underscores the specific legal reasoning focused on free speech. Their agreement suggests that the way Colorado’s law was written presented significant constitutional challenges that were difficult to overcome within the framework of First Amendment jurisprudence as interpreted by the majority.
The core of the free speech argument, as understood by the majority, is that the state cannot prohibit a therapist from expressing certain views, even if those views are about a client’s sexual orientation or gender identity, as long as it’s part of a therapeutic discussion. Critics, however, argue that this is a misapplication of free speech principles, contending that free speech rights do not extend to forcing an audience or compelling participation in a practice that is considered harmful. The law, in their view, doesn’t prevent parents or therapists from discussing these desires amongst themselves, but rather from actively trying to force the child to change.
Many observers have drawn parallels between this ruling and other recent legal challenges, such as bans on drag shows, suggesting a potential pattern of the Court prioritizing certain liberties while being less protective of LGBTQ+ rights. The concern is that this decision could pave the way for further challenges to existing protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.
The devastating impact of conversion therapy programs, which have been linked to increased rates of suicide among LGBTQ+ youth, is a significant factor in the opposition to this ruling. The idea that a therapist, or even a parent, can coerce a child into suppressing their true identity is seen as a profound form of psychological harm. The emotional and psychological toll on young people subjected to these practices is immense, often leading to lifelong trauma and self-hatred, rather than any actual change in their identity.
The debate also touches upon the regulation of professions. A question arises as to whether psychotherapists, as a regulated profession, could be subject to specific ethical guidelines or state regulations that prohibit certain practices, irrespective of broader free speech concerns. For instance, states often regulate what professionals can say to patients in specific contexts to ensure safety and ethical conduct. The current ruling seems to imply that even within a professional context, restrictions on speech based on viewpoint are problematic under the First Amendment.
Ultimately, this Supreme Court ruling has opened a door for further legal battles over the legality and ethicality of conversion therapy. While the decision narrowly focuses on the free speech aspect of conversational therapy and does not endorse the practice itself, many fear it will embolden those who wish to harm LGBTQ+ youth under the guise of religious or personal belief, and that it represents a step backward in the fight for equality and the protection of vulnerable young people. The deep divisions and profound concerns surrounding this decision underscore the ongoing societal struggle to balance individual liberties with the imperative to protect children from harm.