The Supreme Court has decided to hear a case from Colorado that deals with the controversial issue of conversion therapy bans for LGBTQ+ children. This is part of a broader national discourse around transgender rights, highlighted by actions from former President Donald Trump, such as banning transgender individuals from military service and halting federal funding for gender-affirming care for minors.
Colorado is one of many states that have laws prohibiting conversion therapy, a practice aimed at changing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling. The central question in the case is whether these laws infringe upon the free speech rights of counselors. Proponents of the bans argue that they are regulating the professional conduct of state-licensed individuals.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has supported Colorado’s law, while a different decision was made by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, where local laws banning conversion therapy in Florida were struck down. Previously, the Supreme Court refused to address a similar case even though there were differing decisions among federal appeals courts. Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas expressed interest in taking on the issue, however, it takes four justices to accept a case for review, and it’s not clear who else might have voted in favor.
The upcoming term of arguments, beginning in October, will include this case. The appeal has been brought forward by Kaley Chiles, a counselor from Colorado Springs. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative legal group, represents her. Chiles contends that the law affects her professional practice, citing fines up to $5,000 and potential license suspension or revocation as direct interferences. She has reportedly had to turn away clients due to these restrictions, though specifics on numbers were not provided.
ADF draws parallels to a previous Supreme Court decision where a 5-4 majority ruled that California could not compel anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide abortion information. Chiles’ legal representatives argue that her practice does not involve attempts to ‘cure’ or ‘change’ the sexual orientation of clients. Meanwhile, Colorado’s officials maintain that their laws target professional conduct, referencing substantial evidence that conversion therapy efforts are both unsafe and ineffective.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for state authority over professional conduct and the protections offered to minors regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.
