Supreme Court Reviews Challenge to Colorado’s Conversion Therapy Ban
In a recent session, the Supreme Court appeared to lean towards a Christian counselor’s First Amendment challenge against Colorado’s prohibition on “conversion therapy.” This law has raised concerns among several justices, who suggested it might represent “perspective discrimination” against counselors like Kaylee Childs, whose aim is to assist minors in feeling at ease with their own identities rather than simply addressing gender dysphoria.
Colorado’s Mild Conversion Therapy Law, enacted in 2019, defines “conversion therapy” as attempts to “change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity,” encompassing areas such as behavior and romantic attraction. Almost half of the states in the U.S. have implemented similar bans on such practices.
James Campbell, chief legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, expressed that this law silences counselors from helping minors explore their identities without conforming to what he referred to as the state’s biased goals regarding gender and sexuality.
Campbell argued that Colorado’s law negatively affects children experiencing gender dysphoria, explaining that the state acknowledges that up to 90% of affected children may outgrow this feeling before puberty. He interpreted the law as undermining the well-being of these children.
Despite some recent anonymous complaints against counselors regarding potential law violations, officials have claimed they won’t enforce these complaints against practitioners.
“The court seems open to our arguments,” Campbell informed reporters, noting that several clues indicated resistance to the law among justices.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser warned that allowing a First Amendment exception to the conversion therapy ban could pose serious risks. He stated, “This type of pressure and coercion is discredited by all medical associations,” emphasizing that it communicates harmful messages to young individuals.
In a courtroom exchange, Childs reflected, “Colorado’s law harms children suffering from gender dysphoria more than anything else. Counselors are restricted to only one approach: discouraging kids from accepting their bodies. This is a tragedy.”
Colorado officials maintain that “conversion therapy” is “unsafe and ineffective.” In response to these claims, Hashim Muppan from the Justice Department argued there is inadequate evidence proving Colorado’s stance.
Muppan characterized the case simply as a matter of speech, while Attorney General Shannon Stevenson insisted that “conversion therapy” should be viewed as an action rather than expression. She highlighted that medical guidance has long been regulated, asserting that there’s never been a perceived First Amendment defense against offering harmful advice to patients.
Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that homosexuality was once classified as a mental health disorder, acknowledging that, if it had been the prevailing view, states may have enacted legislation against affirming therapeutic approaches.
When confronted with a hypothetical situation wherein justices might regulate talk therapy that aligns with a child’s expressed gender identity, Stevenson found it challenging to argue that such a measure wouldn’t infringe upon free speech rights. Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised questions about whether the state could simply select a particular side in cases of medical uncertainty, remarking that differing opinions exist within the medical community.
Stevenson emphasized the importance of adhering to established standards of care but ultimately conceded that legitimate medical ambiguity would lead to more complex legal dilemmas. She warned that the dangers of conversion therapy stem from misleading youth into believing they can change fundamental aspects of themselves, often resulting in shame and strained family relationships.
