The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Chiles v. Salazar, striking down a Colorado law that banned licensed counselors from discussing sexual orientation or gender identity changes with minors. The majority, led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, found the law violated the First Amendment by censoring speech based on viewpoint. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning the ruling could undermine public health protections.
Core Facts
The case centered on Kaley Chiles, a counselor who challenged Colorado’s 2019 statute prohibiting therapy aimed at changing minors’ sexual orientation or gender identity. The law imposed fines and potential license revocation for violations. The Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutionally restricted speech, requiring strict scrutiny for such regulations.
Deeper Context
Legal Rationale
Gorsuch’s majority opinion emphasized the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, stating that governments cannot enforce orthodoxy in thought or expression. The ruling does not address the merits of conversion therapy but focuses on the state’s authority to regulate speech.
Dissenting View
Jackson argued the ruling could jeopardize public health by allowing practices deemed harmful by medical consensus. She contended the law regulated conduct, not speech, and that the majority’s decision ignored the potential harm to minors.
Policy Implications
Nearly 30 states have similar bans on conversion therapy. The ruling may prompt legal challenges to those laws, though it does not invalidate them outright. Advocates on both sides are interpreting the decision’s broader implications for free speech and public health policy.
Reactions
Critics of the ruling, including some progressive commentators, argue it undermines protections for LGBTQ+ youth. Supporters, including free speech advocates, praise the decision as a defense of constitutional rights against government overreach.