The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared open to a Christian counselor's argument that Colorado's ban on youth conversion therapy hampers her First Amendment right to free speech.
Why it matters: A decision backing the counselor, Kaley Chiles, could force more than 20 states to revisit their bans on the practice, which aims to change sexual orientation and gender identities to align with a person's religious beliefs and has been discredited by leading medical associations.
Zoom in: The conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Chiles, argued that Colorado didn't consider less-restrictive alternatives to a conversion therapy ban, and that Colorado can't prove the counseling causes harm.
- "If heightened scrutiny doesn't apply, states can transform counselors into mouthpieces for the government," said ADF's Chief Legal Counselor Jim Campbell.
The other side: Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson told justices that the state's law doesn't restrict free speech but rather regulates professional conduct.
- "No one has ever suggested that a doctor has a First Amendment defense to say the wrong advice to their patient," Stevenson said.
- Colorado's law doesn't apply to life coaches or religious ministers, because they aren't licensed by the state and held to a specific standard of care, she added.
- "When you're going to see a licensed health care professional ... you're expecting information that is complying with the standard of care and not expecting the practitioner to just be exercising their right to say whatever they want to say," she said.
Conservative justices, who've backed protected speech in past cases, questioned whether Colorado's law put undue restrictions on counselors.
- "Just because they're engaged in conduct doesn't mean that their words aren't protected," Chief Justice John Roberts said.
- Justice Samuel Alito also questioned whether medical consensus can be influenced by ideology.
Yes, but: "I'm hopeful that when the dust settles, the Court will recognize that Colorado's law is an ordinary regulatory of a harmful treatment by licesenced medical professionals," Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, told Axios.
Context: The Supreme Court earlier this year ruled in favor of Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care, on the grounds it was a form of regulating medical care.
- But justices ruled in 2018 that states could regulate health providers' speech in striking down a California law requiring anti-abortion "crisis pregnancy centers" to provide information about how to obtain the procedure.
A decision in the case is expected this summer.
Temp 70°
Dew 69°
Humid 97%
Rain 86%Showers and thunderstorms
