In a recent Supreme Court session, justices examined a case that challenges the legality of LGBTQ+ conversion therapy bans. This case centers on Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor who asserts that state laws infringe upon her First Amendment rights.
Background of the Case
Chiles is supported by the previous Trump administration in her challenge against laws in Colorado and several other states, which prohibit conversion therapy for minors. She argues that these laws restrict her ability to provide faith-based counseling to young individuals seeking such services.
In response, Colorado officials maintain that their legislation is a necessary regulatory measure. They emphasize that conversion therapy has been discredited scientifically and can lead to significant psychological harm.
Arguments Presented
During the hearing, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices expressed skepticism regarding the state’s ability to limit therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation. Justice Samuel Alito remarked that the law appeared to discriminate against certain viewpoints.
- Colorado’s law, passed in 2019, has not led to any sanctions to date.
- The law exempts religious organizations while regulating licensed therapists’ practices.
Colorado state attorneys argued that their law preserves the integrity of health care by preventing ineffective and unsafe treatment. Penalties for violating this law include potential fines of $5,000 and possible suspension or revocation of therapy licenses.
Impact on Individuals
Linda Robertson, a mother from Washington, shared her painful experience related to conversion therapy. Her son, Ryan, underwent such therapy at age 12. After facing distress due to failed attempts to change his orientation, Ryan tragically died by overdose in 2009.
According to Robertson, conversion therapy severely damaged her relationship with Ryan and contributed to his feelings of shame and worthlessness.
Chiles’ Perspective
Chiles argues that her counseling approach significantly differs from harmful practices associated with conversion therapy in previous decades. She contends that individuals thrive when they align with their biological sex as defined by their faith.
Her legal team asserts that the Colorado law discriminates against counselors who offer differing views. They argue that individuals should have the choice to pursue this type of counseling voluntarily.
The Broader Legal Landscape
The Supreme Court’s decision to take on this case follows a previous ruling that allowed states to regulate health care for transgender youths. The attorneys representing Chiles, Alliance Defending Freedom, previously won cases that redefined the limits on state regulation of faith-based counseling.
Similar legislative battles are unfolding across the country. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, has struck down similar bans in Florida, while Wisconsin officials recently supported the enforcement of their own regulations. In Virginia, an agreement was reached to limit enforcement measures against conversion therapy.
The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for the legality of conversion therapy bans and how states can regulate therapeutic practices.
