SCOTUS to Determine if Colorado “Conversion Therapy” Ban Violates First Amendment
“over 20 states and 100 locales have enacted laws that silence counselors’ ability to express views their clients seek on a topic of ‘fierce public debate’—’how best to help minors with gender dysphoria.'”
On Monday, March 10, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a case that could have blockbuster repercussions.
The case, Chiles v. Salazar, concerns a Colorado licensed professional counselor who wishes to provide services to Colorado youth suffering from gender dysphoria. But Colorado law forbids that counselor, Kaley Chiles, from providing any counseling (i.e. speaking) if it concerns the concept of a young person NOT seeking to affirm their transgender status. For example, if a young person who has transitioned from one sex to another is questioning that decision and approaches Chiles for guidance about potentially detransitioning, she is legally forbidden from providing that guidance.
The Christian Post has the story: Supreme Court agrees to hear legal challenge to Colorado’s ‘conversion therapy’ ban:
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a legal challenge to Colorado’s law prohibiting licensed counselors from providing sexual orientation change efforts therapy for clients seeking their help.
In an orders list released Monday morning, the high court agreed without comment to hear the case of Kaley Chiles v. Patty Salazar et al., which challenges Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious freedom legal nonprofit representing Chiles, celebrated the court’s decision to hear oral arguments in the case.
ADF CEO Kristen Waggoner said in a press release on Monday that she believes state officials have “no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors.”
“Colorado’s law prohibits what’s best for these children and sends a clear message: the only option for children struggling with these issues is to give them dangerous and experimental drugs and surgery that will make them lifelong patients,” stated Waggoner.
“We are eager to defend Kaley’s First Amendment rights and ensure that government officials may not impose their ideology on private conversations between counselors and clients.”
In 2019, Colorado passed the Minor Conversion Therapy Law, which prohibits what critics derisively call “gay conversion therapy” for minors, after multiple similar bills had failed in past years…
In September 2022, Chiles filed a legal challenge against the law, claiming that it violated the Free Speech Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against Chiles last September, upholding an earlier district ruling in favor of Colorado’s therapy ban.
So, Kaley Chiles asked the Supreme Court to review the case, and now they have agreed to do so.
Chiles’ Petition to the Court, available for review here, makes the following arguments:
- “[O]ver 20 states and 100 locales have enacted laws that silence counselors’ ability to express views their clients seek on a topic of ‘fierce public debate’—’how best to help minors with gender dysphoria.’ The Eleventh and Third Circuits have rightly concluded that such laws regulate speech. But the Tenth Circuit has now joined the Ninth in blessing censorship by labeling counseling speech ‘conduct.’ The Court should not allow this conflict to persist. Otherwise, counselors like Kaley Chiles and countless other professionals ‘who provide personalized services to clients’ or ‘who are subject to a … licensing and regulatory regime’ will have First Amendment protections in some states but not others. Constitutional rights should not depend on geographical happenstance.”
- “The decision below also conflicts with this Court’s decision[s], which [have] held that states lack the ‘unfettered power to reduce a group’s First Amendment rights by simply imposing a licensing requirement.’ Nor can governments ‘say that just because a broadly applicable law that restricts speech also restricts conduct, the restriction on speech is merely incidental to the regulation of conduct.’ Here, the Tenth Circuit did just that and upheld censorship.”
- “A growing body of research reveals how critical Chiles’s counseling is, especially for young people. Most minors who experience gender dysphoria become comfortable with their biological sex if they are not affirmed in a transgender identity. Some studies say 98 percent of gender dysphoric children will identify with their biological sex before adulthood…Other nations that initially adopted an ‘affirm only’ approach now caution against it—and, in some cases, ban the practice of affirming young peoples’ gender dysphoria…[But] many counselors won’t take clients struggling with gender dysphoria ‘because any topic but ‘affirming’ can be said to violate’ laws like Colorado’s…Chiles wants to provide that emotional support in an evidence-based manner that aligns with her and her clients’ shared convictions.”
Apparently, SCOTUS found these arguments convincing enough for them to take the case, which will now proceed to briefing “on the merits” and oral argument, probably in the fall.
One thing of note is that the dissent in the Tenth Circuit case (remember that case was decided 2-1) makes some good points:
The majority opinion holds, in essence, that speech by licensed professionals in the course of their professional practices is not speech, but conduct. Because, says the majority opinion, engaging in the practice of a profession is conduct (even if the practice consists exclusively of talking), any restriction on professional speech is just incidental to the regulation of conduct. In my view, and, more importantly, in the view of the United States Supreme Court, such wordplay poses a serious threat to free speech…
We are fortunate to belong to a society in which the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment allows us to speak our minds free of government interference, to do so in every context, absent powerful reasons supported by historical practice and trustworthy study and experience. The issue in this case is whether to recognize an exception to freedom of speech when the leaders of national professional organizations declare certain speech to be dangerous and demand deference to their views by all members of their professions, regardless of the relevance or strength of their purported supporting evidence. As I understand controlling Supreme Court precedent, the answer is clearly no.
[emphasis in original]
Read the whole dissent. It is very good. Hopefully the Supreme Court will think so too.
We will keep you updated as this the case proceeds to merits briefing, oral argument, and ultimate disposition.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Informed consent is a basic human right.
To deny full disclosure before your body parts are removed is outrageous!
So the state can tell licensed professionals what they can and cannot say? Does that go for anyone that is licensed or certified? Who decides what can and cannot be said? Sounds an awful lot like what the healthcare insurance company did to the pharmacies. Don’t tell your customers that there are cheaper alternative unless they ask. They are forcing the licensed professional to not give their patient options. What if detransitioning causes more health issues? Will that patient now sue the professional that didn’t give them all the choices or the state, maybe both? This is lunacy and government overreach.
To Scaulen,
You are obviously not aware of all the garbage the different state force doctors to say.
Here in Florida, eye doctors face severe financial penalties for not giving smoking cessation counseling.
We all have to make a statement in the patients chart that we have offered alternatives to narcotics to include music therapy
It’s garbage but all states do it, just about different topics
Either there is freedom of speech or there isn’t. This can have implications in other cases.
.
Two points for slight disagreement.
1. Time, place and manner restrictions are permissible
2. The level of 1A protection differs among different classes of persons within the USA; US Citizens, US National, Aliens. The 1A isn’t ‘one size fits all’ proposition any more than the 2A is ‘one size fits all’ for every person in the USA.
It is interesting that more ardent 1A defenders of Mr Khalil haven’t been nearly as vocal about the 1A issues raised by the Counselor in this case. That seems to be the usual pattern where the 1A rights of the extremists, criminals, anarchists or terrorists are vigorously championed by the usual suspects but when normies assert 1A the usual suspect 1A defenders are silent or offer token defense far less vigorous than for others.
“… which will now proceed to briefing “on the merits” and oral argument, probably in the fall.”
We have been in “the fall” for several decades.
If this decision isn’t a slam dunk, God help America.
It’s so exhausting, seeing almost every day, how little respect so many officials have for free speech.
It isn’t just lack of respect for free speech, but purposeful blindness to reality.
Both “transitioning” and “de-transitioning” are labels for actions which can’t and don’t actually happen. A person remains the same sex they were conceived as no matter how they mutilate themselves or how many chemicals they ingest.
What’s actually being discussed is how Colorado or whomever chooses to treat a particular mental illness, either by buying into and encouraging the patient’s delusions or buy helping them overcome them.
For reasons truly inexplicable, the Left is heavily invested in the concept that sex is mutable. It is chilling to realize that ordinary people can successfully be propagandized in this way.
If they can be convinced of this, what else will they believe? That anyone who voted for Trump is a Nazi? That humans control the climate?
Leftists are filled with hot resentment that God has created humans with limitations.
finally
a law clearly made to once again
usurp parental rights is going to depend on roberts ( probably) not sliding more left
I think even acb will vote forrrrr parental right
But how will Roberts weasel out of taking responsibility yet again while appeasing his Left-wing masters? Poor guy. /s
again
b/c 2020 violence/demvid19 was allowed to be normalized
the fear that they will just reignite the streets lingers in our not-so-distant memories
maga
by any means necessary
the left has really got us by the nads
they have us responsible for BOTH
your health and well being
and if you should succumb to your mental issues we are also being held responsible for that too
personal responsibility is not their forte
Dim-witted Dhimmi-crat activist, so-called “Justice” Jackson will need to consult a biologist, prior to oral argument and brief-reading, in order to ascertain exactly what a “woman” is,
Reading about this makes me feel like I’m reading a fictional novel that is so absurd it should be listed under comedy. To think a state would actually do something like this is so far from what normal people think that it is unbelievable! I used to ski in CO many years ago and never saw anything like this. It is obvious that a lot of CA people have moved into the state.
How does the Colorado AG plan to answer the basic question why it’s permissible for an individual to “counsel”/coerce/encourage Colorado youth to seek to “transition”/change their gender, but, not to proffer advice/counsel to the contrary position? This is such blatant and brazen viewpoint discrimination.
Or, to clarify/correct my comment, why is it permissible for a Colorado counselor to encourage youth to change their gender, initially, but, not to reverse that decision, at a later date?
The Second Law of Societal Dynamics — Leftists must always increase entropy. Chaos is their goal in hopes of ruling over the ashes of civilization one day. Better than serving in Heaven they figure.
Absolutely correct. Progressives have been quite open about their goals in the past. They believe that our society must be destroyed to create their socialist utopia. To further this, they are trying to spend us into bankruptcy, flood us with immigrants and terrorist sympathizers, collapse the criminal justice system, and bring about violent class and ethnic conflicts. They have many allies and sympathizers within the State who believe they will prevail and profit from this transformation, and they are hard at work scheming to bring this about ASAP. However, their hubris has emboldened them to overplay their hand, and now things have taken an unexpected turn. So we have an opportunity to strike back, and identifying the enemies has never been easier. Now we’ll see if we still have the will to do whatever is necessary to pull our country back from the abyss.
Blasphemy noun:
1. profane or contemptuous speech, writing, or action concerning God or anything considered sacred.
2. any remark or action held to be irreverent or disrespectful
The “gender affirming” model flies in the face of all accepted principles of medicine and medical ethics that have been the bedrock of Western medicine for over 100 years –until five minutes ago.
For a patient with gender dysphoria (or lets be frank, typically a confused, often vulnerable and suggestible adolescent) any accepted “differential diagnosis” must include that they may be (a) just gay, but with stereotyped visions of what “male” or “female” behavior must be, or (b) just otherwise confused and unhappy, and quite possibly influenced by peer pressure, social media and/or valorization of the LGBTQ community on society, etc etc.
But “gender affirming” is a one-way ratchet, and forces blinders on the clinician to avoid even making a reasonable differential. Until 5 minutes ago this would be the definition of medical (or psychiatric) malpractice. Pro tip: it still is, only they’ve just tried to manipulate language to bake the diagnosis into the chief complaint.
The very definition of “gender affirming care” is nonsense, illogical and unethical to the core. The concept of “conversion therapy” is simply the flip side of the same (nonsense, illogical and unethical) definition –to condemn any approach but to “affirm” (assume) the trans diagnosis.
Detransitioning help is going to be provided regardless of any threats from the State, and malpractice awards should eventually put the brakes on this whole sordid industry.
The legal sword cuts both ways. If the Supreme court is foolish enough to uphold the 10th (and 9th) circuits, the result will be that deep red States like Arkansas will simply enact diametrically opposite statutes restricting the “conduct” of counselors. Oh, then the wailing and gnashing of teeth! To string together several cliches:
Be careful. Sometimes you get what you wish for.
You made your bed. Now lie in it.
You reap what you sow.