Supreme Court Ruling on Colorado’s “Conversion Therapy” Law

Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, recently discussed a significant Supreme Court ruling on Breitbart News Daily, asserting that counselors engaging with clients exercise free speech. This comes after the Court decided 8-1 against Colorado’s “conversion therapy” law, which restricted therapists from assisting minors in aligning their “gender identity” with their biological sex. The justices concluded that the law likely breaches the First Amendment by favoring certain viewpoints over others.

Campbell elaborated on the case, noting that his client, a licensed counselor in Colorado, found himself hindered by a law from 2019 that prevents him from aiding confused youths in reconciling their gender and physical identity. However, the law permits affirming children’s misconceptions about their gender.

“This law is simply discrimination based on perspective,” Campbell stated. “It allows counselors to encourage youth under 18 to transition but bars them from helping these individuals find comfort in their own bodies and realign their identities.”

His client decided to file a lawsuit, claiming this infringed upon her First Amendment rights, limiting both her speech and the conversations she could have with her clients. Campbell emphasized that the lawsuit centers on the issue of speech, not on medical practices.

“There are definite boundaries to free speech,” he acknowledged, pointing out that the courts acknowledge differences when it involves medical procedures or medication prescriptions, stating that the First Amendment doesn’t shield certain actions.

He made it clear that they sought to advocate for a counselor simply conducting voluntary talk therapy, which lower courts mistakenly classified as part of regulatory concerns regarding professional conduct.

Campbell noted, “The Supreme Court’s 8-1 majority recognized that no action was being taken; rather, it was a matter of engaging in speech.” He clarified that his client was not a psychiatrist and was simply a counselor having conversations, emphasizing that the Court had ruled that this kind of dialogue is indeed protected under the First Amendment.

He further elaborated that this ruling could impact other areas as well, suggesting it would be inappropriate for states to dictate that counselors could encourage divorce but not assist married clients in reconciliation.

“Likewise, the government shouldn’t restrict counselors from helping minors who are struggling with their gender identity while allowing them to encourage transitions,” he added.