The Supreme Court Takes On Conversion Therapy
In a significant move, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from Colorado that addresses whether state and local governments can enforce laws banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children. This decision comes at a time when President Donald Trump’s administration has taken actions targeting transgender individuals, including a ban on military service and the termination of federal funding for gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The case adds to the growing list of high-profile social issues the court is tackling, further intensifying the national debate over LGBTQ+ rights.
The Political Climate Surrounding the Case
The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, is now faced with a contentious issue that has major implications for LGBTQ+ communities. This case is particularly relevant given the broader political climate, whereOpenGL President Trump’s policies have consistently targeted transgender rights. While the court has heard arguments in a similar Tennessee case regarding state bans on treating transgender minors, no decision has been reached yet. This Colorado case could set a precedent for how such laws are handled nationwide, adding urgency to the legal battle over conversion therapy.
The Legal Battle Over Conversion Therapy
At the heart of the case is the question of whether Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy violates the speech rights of counselors. Proponents of the law argue that it is a necessary regulation of professional conduct, as it seeks to protect minors from practices that have been widely discredited by medical professionals. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the Colorado law, while the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta struck down similar local bans in Florida. This split in lower court decisions is precisely why the Supreme Court’s intervention is crucial. In 2023, the court had previously declined to take up a similar challenge, despite calls from Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Clarence Thomas to do so. The recent decision to hear the case suggests that the court is now ready to address the unresolved conflicts in the federal appeals courts.
Implications for LGBTQ+ Rights
The implications of the case are profound, as it touches on the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and the authority of state and local governments to regulate therapeutic practices. Conversion therapy, which aims to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, has been widely condemned by medical professionals as ineffective and harmful. Colorado is among roughly half of the states that have enacted laws prohibiting this practice, citing the need to protect children from its potential harm. However, opponents argue that such laws infringe on the free speech rights of counselors, raising complex legal and ethical questions about the balance between professional regulation and individual expression.
The Role of Alliance Defending Freedom
The case being considered by the Supreme Court is being argued by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative legal organization that has become a prominent player in high-profile social issues. Representing Kaley Chiles, a counselor in Colorado Springs, ADF has positioned the case as a matter of free speech. Chiles’ lawyers have emphasized that she does not seek to "cure" clients of same-sex attractions or change their sexual orientation but rather offers therapy that aligns with her clients’ goals. In their arguments, they have drawn parallels to a 2018 Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that California could not force state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion.
What’s Next?
The case will be heard during the court’s new term, which begins in October. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences, both for LGBTQ+ rights and for the balance of powers between state governments and the federal judiciary. Colorado’s lawyers have defended the law, arguing that it is a necessary regulation of professional conduct based on substantial evidence showing that conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful to children. As the court prepares to weigh in, the decision will likely be closely watched by advocacy groups, lawmakers, and the broader public. The case represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle for LGBTQ+ rights and the role of the courts in shaping social policy.
