Supreme Court Challenges Laws Banning ‘Conversion Therapy’ for Minors
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court addressed a significant free-speech case involving state laws banning “conversion therapy” for minors. This legal challenge stems from legislation adopted by California and over 20 other states that prohibits licensed counselors from advising or promoting changes to a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Background on Conversion Therapy Legislation
The laws were enacted as a protective measure against historically harmful practices. These practices included extreme measures such as inducing nausea or administering electric shocks to alter sexual orientations. Experts in medicine and lawmakers deem these interventions cruel and ineffective, with long-lasting psychological repercussions on LGBTQ+ youth.
Key Case: Chiles vs. Salazar
Christian counselors have challenged these laws, arguing that they inhibit vital discussions with young individuals exploring their feelings and identities. One notable case is that of Kaley Chiles, a counselor from Colorado Springs, Colorado. Chiles, an evangelical Christian, does not aim to change anyone’s sexual orientation but believes in the right to have open conversations.
- Challenger: Kaley Chiles
- Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
- Initial Rulings: Failed in federal and appellate courts
- Legal Claim: First Amendment rights to free speech
Chiles asserts that the Colorado law restricts her discussions with clients and risks punitive measures against her. Her attorney argued that the law censors widespread views on critical moral questions. During the hearings, several justices, both conservative and liberal, indicated that the law may infringe upon free speech rights. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. emphasized that the regulation pertains to speech, raising concerns about unequal treatment treatments based on client preferences.
Implications of the Ruling
Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson defended the law, clarifying that it solely applies to licensed counselors, excluding other professionals such as religious leaders. She emphasized that the state has a duty to regulate medical care, unlike the freedom to dispense potentially harmful advice.
Historical Context
The Supreme Court justices noted the evolving perceptions of homosexuality in the medical field. This prompted inquiries about whether state laws could restrict licensed professionals from affirming LGBTQ+ identities in previous decades. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch raised this poignant question, indicating the legal complexities surrounding this issue.
Moreover, the Trump administration has expressed support for Chiles, advocating for her free-speech rights. The case is crucial as it comes on the heels of broader legal challenges concerning LGBTQ+ rights, including protection against discrimination for businesses serving same-sex couples.
Future Court Hearings
The case, Chiles vs. Salazar, marks an essential aspect of the current Supreme Court term, focusing on LGBTQ+ issues. In December, the Court is scheduled to hear another case regarding West Virginia’s attempts to prohibit transgender athletes from competing in girls’ sports.
This ongoing legal discourse highlights the tension between state regulations, professional licenses, and individual rights. As the Supreme Court deliberates, the implications for both counselors and LGBTQ+ minors remain profound.
