Skip to content

Supreme Court Weighs Conversion Therapy Ban's Impact on Free Speech

The Supreme Court is debating a Colorado law banning conversion therapy for minors. The case could set a precedent for similar laws across the U.S., balancing free speech and protecting vulnerable youth.

In the picture we can see some school children are standing on the path with school uniforms and...
In the picture we can see some school children are standing on the path with school uniforms and they are holding some papers in their hands and one girl is talking something near the microphone which is to the stand and behind them we can see a fencing wall and to the top of it we can see a shed with some balloons top it.

Supreme Court Weighs Conversion Therapy Ban's Impact on Free Speech

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case that could significantly impact laws in numerous states regarding 'conversion therapy'. The practice, aimed at altering a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, has been widely discredited. The case, Chiles v. Salazar, involves an Evangelical Christian therapist, Kaley Chiles, who argues that Colorado's ban on the therapy for minors violates her free speech rights.

Most justices appeared inclined to rule against the Colorado law, which could invalidate similar laws in around two dozen states. The case is expected to yield a decision by summer. Chiles, a licensed professional counselor, contends that her practice involves only talk therapy and does not employ physical restraints or coercion. She believes the state's ban prevents voluntary conversations with minors seeking her help.

Chiles, who has not yet used the therapy due to fears of losing her license or being fined, argues that the law violates her First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. The Colorado law permits discussions about feelings of confusion or uncertainty but prohibits therapists from promising to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito suggested the law may be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, while liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson compared the situation to a medical doctor prescribing medication.

The Supreme Court's decision in Chiles v. Salazar could have far-reaching implications, potentially affecting similar laws in multiple states. The case highlights the tension between free speech rights and the protection of vulnerable individuals, particularly minors, from potentially harmful practices.

Read also:

Latest