Washington – The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear free-voice challenges to laws in Colorado, California and 20 other states that prohibit licensed counsel from seeking to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors.
Since California in 2012, state lawmakers have banned “conversion therapy” on the grounds that it is ineffective and harmful. These treatments lead to increased rates of depression, anxiety and suicide, they say.
But the Justice voted to pass the First Amendment claim by Kaley Chiles, a licensed adviser in Colorado, who believes the law violates her rights to exercise freedom of speech and religious freedom.
She said her clients “seek Christian-based counseling to reduce or eliminate unnecessary sexual attractions, alter sexual behavior or grow in experiences that are harmonious with the body.”
She said she is not seeking to “convert” or “heal” young clients, but believes the state may not “review” their conversation.
The appeal was filed by the Alliance Defends Freedom, a Christian legal group that won a Supreme Court ruling and website designers on behalf of cake makers who refused to attend the wedding of same-sex couples.
If the court violates Colorado law, the ruling would almost certainly violate similar laws in California and elsewhere.
The new case tests whether “professional speeches” may be subject to strict supervision by the state.
The judge maintained the California and Colorado law against “transformational therapy” by ruling that states have broad powers to regulate medical and health care practices. This includes licensing and malfeasance laws that can provide dangerous or highly inappropriate treatment advice to a doctor or other medical professional.
Colorado prosecutors say Christian law appeals argue that “mental health professionals’ consultation with patients is no different from chatting with classmates’ roommates.”
Counselors who violate the law can be fined or lost their license. The state notes that its law “does not apply to people who provide services outside of a professional healthcare background, such as a religious minister or a life coach.”
Colorado lawyers urged the court to confirm that “the First Amendment allows states to reasonably regulate professional conduct to protect patients from non-qualified treatment, even if the statute occasionally bears the verbal burden.”
But under Judge Clarence Thomas, conservatives say states are using these laws to enforce their views.
“There was a heated debate on how to best help minors in minors,” Thomas said.
Two years ago, when the court rejected similar rhetoric challenges in Washington state’s “conversion therapy” law, he joined Justice Samuel A. Alito and Brett M. Kavanaugh two years ago.
“Lien counselors can talk to minors about gender irritability, but only if they convey a message that encourages minors to explore gender identity. Any other information is also prohibited – even if the counselor’s clients seek help with accepting biological gender,” Thomas said.
It takes at least four votes to hear an appeal, which indicates that one or more judges now agree to Thomas’ consent.
The court will hear the debate between Chile and Sarasal in the fall.
Still before the court is a parallel dispute over state laws that restrict gender irritability.
Tennessee and 23 Republican-led states recently passed laws prohibiting doctors from prescribing pubertal blockers or hormones for gender-irritated minors.
The Biden administration filed a lawsuit arguing that the state was subject to unconstitutional discrimination based on gender identity.
But when the justices tried the case in December, the court conservatives said they tended to uphold Tennessee law on the grounds that the state has the power to regulate medical practice.
