Supreme Court Strikes Down Most Applications of Conversion Therapy Ban

In Chiles v. Salazar, (Sup.Ct., March 31, 2026), the U.S. Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision struck down most applications of Colorado's law that prohibits licensed counselors from engaging in conversion therapy for minors, defined as therapy that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Justice Gorsuch, joined by all but Justice Jackson, wrote the majority opinion which says in part:

The State insists, and the Tenth Circuit agreed, that its law does not “regulate expression” at all, only “conduct,” “treatment,” or a “therapeutic modality.”...  As a result, Colorado reasons, its law triggers no more than rational-basis or intermediate scrutiny review.... But the State’s premise is simply mistaken.  In many applications, the State’s law banning “conversion therapy” may address conduct—such as aversive physical interventions.  But here, Ms. Chiles seeks to engage only in speech, and as applied to her the law regulates what she may say.  Her speech does not become conduct just because the State may call it that. Nor does her speech become conduct just because it can also be described as a “treatment,” a “therapeutic modality,” or anything else. The First Amendment is no word game. And the rights it protects cannot be renamed away or their protections nullified by “mere labels.”...

As applied here, Colorado’s law does not just regulate the content of Ms. Chiles’s speech.  It goes a step further, prescribing what views she may and may not express.  For a gay client, Ms. Chiles may express “[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for the facilitation of . . . identity exploration.” §12–245–202(3.5)(b)(I).  For a client “undergoing gender transition,” Ms. Chiles may likewise offer words of “[a]ssistance.” §12–245–202(3.5)(b)(II).  But if a gay or transgender client seeks her counsel in the hope of changing his sexual orientation or gender identity, Ms. Chiles cannot provide it....

At bottom, Colorado and the dissent fundamentally misconceive this Court’s speech-incident-to-conduct precedents. In these cases, the question is not whether a law mostly addresses conduct and only sometimes sweeps in speech. Instead, the focus lies on two entirely different questions: whether the law in question restricts speech only because it is integrally related to unlawful conduct— or ... only for reasons unrelated to its content....

Colorado’s law does not regulate speech incident to conduct under either test....

... Colorado emphasizes, [prior precedent] left open the possibility that a future party might present “persuasive evidence . . . of a long (if heretofore unrecognized) tradition” of content regulation regarding additional categories of professional (or other) speech that might likewise warrant only “diminished” First Amendment protection....

...  Colorado and the dissent ask us to recognize a cavernous “First Amendment Free Zone,”... one in which States may censor almost any speech they consider “substandard care.” It is, once more, an approach our precedents already foreclose. 

Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor, filed a concurring opinion stating that the result might be different if a law regulating speech in doctors' and counselors' offices were content-based but viewpoint-neutral.

Justice Jackson filed a 35-page dissenting opinion saying in part:

Stated simply, the majority has failed to appreciate the crucial context in which Chiles’s constitutional claims have arisen. Chiles is not speaking in the ether; she is providing therapy to minors as a licensed healthcare professional. The Tenth Circuit was correct to observe that “[t]here is a long-established history of states regulating the healthcare professions.” ...  And, until today, the First Amendment has not blocked their way.  For good reason: Under our precedents, bedrock First Amendment principles have far less salience when the speakers are medical professionals and their treatment-related speech is being restricted incidentally to the State’s regulation of the provision of medical care....

Over the past few decades, however, the premise of conversion therapy (in whatever form) has been widely discredited within the medical and scientific community. Conversion therapy is, at bottom, “based on a view of gender diversity that runs counter to scientific consensus.”...

A state license used to mean something to the patients who entrust their care to licensed professionals—i.e., that the person is certified to be one who provides treatments that are consistent with the standard of care. 

That stops today....

The Guardian reports on the decision. ADF, which represented petitioner, issued a press release commenting on the decision.

6th Circuit: Michigan's Ban on Conversion Therapy for Minors Violates 1st Amendment

In Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale Counties v. Whitmer, (6th Cir., Dec. 17, 2025), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Michigan's ban on licensed therapists engaging in conversion therapy with minors violates the 1st Amendment's free speech protections.  The court said in part:

 “As a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”...  The law at issue here does that:  it bans counseling “that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behavior or gender expression[,]” among other things.  M.C.L. § 330.1100a(20).

Worse, the Michigan law discriminates based on viewpoint... Specifically, the Michigan law forbids counseling that “seeks to change” a child’s “sexual orientation or gender identity” to align with the child’s religious beliefs or biological sex....  But the law expressly permits “counseling that provides assistance to an individual undergoing a gender transition”.... The law omits a similar carveout for sexual orientation.  Thus, ...the Michigan law codifies “a particular viewpoint—sexual orientation is immutable, but gender is not—and prohibit[s] the therapists from advancing any other perspective.” ...

So HB 4616 finds itself in a constitutional no-man’s land, absent some exception that liberates it from First Amendment scrutiny altogether.  The district court thought that exception came by way of “the broad power of States to regulate the practice of licensed professionals[.]” ...

But it takes more than a general tradition of regulation, in some domain of human activity, to validate content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech....

For HB 4616 to survive strict scrutiny, the defendants must show that its restrictions on speech are the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest....  The defendants have not come close to making that showing; indeed they have hardly tried....

Judge Bloomekatz filed a lengthy dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The majority opinion overrides Michigan’s judgment about the efficacy and harms of conversion therapy by declaring that regulations of medical treatments are subject to “the strictest of scrutiny” whenever the regulated treatment is delivered via words....  The majority opinion reaches that result by saying that psychotherapy consists of “spoken words and nothing more,” and then affords it the same protection as speech in the public square or a conversation between friends....  I disagree.  

Not all words receive the same First Amendment protection, as is evident from the law’s long tradition of subjecting speech that administers a medical treatment to lesser First Amendment scrutiny.  Far from being “words and nothing more,” psychotherapy is an evidence-based medical intervention provided by trained licensed professionals, and it falls within the state’s historic power to regulate medicine.  By affording the words therapists say while providing psychotherapy the highest constitutional protection possible, the majority opinion ties states’ hands as to medically-repudiated practices like conversion therapy, and its reasoning threatens to subject wide swaths of medical regulations to strict scrutiny. 

What’s more, the majority opinion reaches this result even though all agree that the Supreme Court is poised to resolve the same issue in Chiles v. Salazar.... 

AP reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Conversion Therapy Ban Case on Tuesday

Tomorrow (Oct. 7), the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar. In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law that bans mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors does not violate the free speech or free exercise rights of mental health professionals. (See prior posting.)  Only the free speech issue was raised in the petition for review by the Supreme Court. At issue tomorrow is whether the ban on talk therapy for minors aimed at changing their gay or transgender identity is fully protected speech. Or may that therapy be regulated as primarily professional conduct that the legislature deems to constitute substandard medical care.

Here is the SCOTUSblog case page that provides link to all the briefs and motions filed in the case, as well as to commentary on the case. The oral arguments will be live streamed by the Court at this page beginning at 10:00 AM Eastern Time. Links to a recoding and written transcript of the arguments can be accessed here later in the day on Tuesday.

Virginia Enters Consent Decree Permitting Religiously Motivated Talk Therapy to Change Minors' Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity

In a press release last week, Founding Freedoms Law Center announced that the Virginia Department of Health Professions and the Virginia Board of Counseling last month entered into a consent decree (full text) in Raymond v. Virgnia Department of Health Professions, (Cir. Ct., June 4, 2025). The decree enjoins defendants from enforcing Virginia's ban on conversion therapy for minors against plaintiffs and all similarly situated counselors insofar as they are engaging only in religiously motivated "talk therapy" aimed at aligning a minor's gender identity or romantic attractions with the client's biological sex. The decree provides in part:

11. Plaintiffs are Christians and integrate their religious faith in their counseling of clients through talk therapy, which consists of voluntary conversations, prayer, and sharing of written materials such as Scripture, between an individual counselor and an individual client....

22, ...[T]he parties consider that enforcing the Challenged Provisions with respect to talk therapy between a licensed professional and a client that is motivated or informed by religious beliefs and desired by the client would violate Article I, §§ 11 and 16 of the Virginia Constitution, as well as the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Virginia Mercury reports on the consent decree. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Kentucky Legislature Authorizes Conversion Therapy for Minors

Last week, the Kentucky legislature gave final approval to House Bill 495 (full text) which invalidates Executive Order 2024-632 issued last year by Governor Andy Beshear.  The Executive Order contained a number of provisions to prevent the practice of conversion therapy on minors. HB 495 also prohibits the use of Medicaid funds for cross-sex hormones or gender reassignment surgery.  AP, reporting on the bill's passage, said in part:

The measure voted on Friday, and denounced by Beshear, cleared both chambers by veto-proof margins. Lawmakers will take up vetoes while wrapping up this year’s session in late March.

[Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Conversion Therapy Ban Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review in Chiles v. Salazar, (Docket No. 24-539, certiorari granted 3/10/2025).  In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law that bans mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors does not violate the free speech or free exercise rights of mental health professionals. (See prior posting.) The petition for certiorari raises only the free speech issue. The SCOTUSblog case page for the case contains links to pleadings in the case. AP reports on the grant of review.

Missouri and Christian Counselors Sue Localities Over Conversion Therapy Bans

Suit was filed last week in a Missouri federal district court against Kansas City and Jackson County, Missouri by the state of Missouri and Christian licensed counselors challenging ordinances passed by those jurisdictions which broadly ban licensed counselors from engaging in counseling directed at changing a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. The complaint (full text) in Wyatt Bury, LLC v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, (WD MO, filed 2/7/2025), alleges in part:

Kansas City and Jackson County recently passed ordinances that ban purely consensual conversations—pure speech—about gender identity and sexual orientation. These ordinances not only require counselors to parrot these governments’ preferred views on sexual ethics; they also ban different views. That violates the First Amendment. 

340. The Counseling Ordinances facially and as-applied restrict speech based on content and viewpoint by prohibiting the Counselors and other licensed professionals who are Missouri citizens from proclaiming only certain content and viewpoints; by applying to speech based solely on its content; by authorizing counseling that supports only one viewpoint of gender identity and sexual orientation....  

353. The Public Accommodation Ordinance forces the Counselors to speak messages they object to by requiring them to offer and provide same-sex marital and relationship counseling because the Counselors offer and provide counseling about marriages and relationships between one man and one woman.... and to refer to clients and prospective clients by using those persons’ self-selected pronouns....

376. The City’s Public Accommodation Ordinance substantially burdens the Counselors’ sincerely held religious beliefs by requiring them either to operate their counseling practices in ways that violate their religious beliefs or to close their practices....

Plaintiffs also challenge the ordinances on vagueness grounds. 

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuits.

Michigan's Ban on Conversion Therapy for Minors Is Upheld

In Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties v. Whitmer, (WD MI, Jan. 28, 2025), a Michigan federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement against counselors employed by Catholic Charities of Michigan's ban on conversion therapy for minors. The court concluded that plaintiffs were not likely to prove that the ban violates their free speech or free exercise rights, or that is void for vagueness.  The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiffs allege that they believe that “when a client comes to them and seeks to change her gender identity or gender expression to align with her biological sex, or seeks to change her behavior to refrain from acting on same-sex attraction, it is their ethical and religious duty to help that client live the life she desires to live” ...

The law is not subject to any form of heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment because the conduct regulated by the law is not merely “tied to a [medical] procedure,” ..., but consists solely of the administration of the procedure or treatment itself.... 

... In passing the new law, Michigan legislators found that treating children with conversion therapy fell below prevailing standards of care, and Michigan legislators targeted the specific and devastating harms to children that result from conversion therapy, including dramatically increased risks of depression and suicide....

Plaintiffs are not likely to establish the Free Speech violations alleged in Counts I through III....

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Plaintiffs have plausibly demonstrated that Michigan’s law burdens the free exercise of religion, a law that burdens religious exercise is presumptively unconstitutional unless it is both neutral and generally applicable....

Michigan’s new law readily passes this test of facial neutrality.... There is no reference to religion nor any use of words with religious connotations. Michigan’s law prohibits all conversion therapy on minors, regardless of whether the minor’s (or the minor’s parent’s) motivation for seeking such therapy is religious or secular, or some variation....

Here, Plaintiffs contend that Michigan’s law was enacted with “official expressions of hostility to this well-known religious practice” ....  However, ... the comments Plaintiffs highlight do not necessarily demonstrate hostility to religion, only criticisms of conversion therapy.

News from the States reports on the decision.

Certiorari Filed with Supreme Court in Challenge to Colorado Conversion Therapy Ban

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last Friday in Chiles v. Salazar, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 11/8/2024). In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law that bans mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors does not violate the free speech or free exercise rights of mental health professionals. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filling of the petition for review.

Kentucky Governor Issues Executive Order Limiting Conversion Therapy for Minors

 After attempts to get the Kentucky state legislature to ban conversion therapy for minors failed, on Wednesday Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear issued Executive Order 2024-632 (full text) which uses executive powers available to him to limit the practice. The Executive Order provides in part:

The Cabinet for Health and Family Services shall take all actions necessary to prohibit the direct or indirect use of state and federal funds for the practice of conversion therapy on minors, referring a minor for conversion therapy, or extending health benefits coverage for conversion therapy with a minor....

Any state agency that discovers or receives a report that a provider certified or licensed to practice in Kentucky engages in conversion therapy efforts with a person under 18 years of age or performs counseling on conversion therapy as part of his training for any profession licensed under a professional certification or licensing board within the Commonwealth of Kentucky shall report that provider to the appropriate professional certification or licensing board within the Commonwealth for potential disciplinary action....

The Governor's office issued a press release announcing the signing of the Executive Order. AP reports on the Executive Order. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

10th Circuit Upholds Colorado's Ban on Conversion Therapy

In Chiles v. Salazar, (10th Cir., Sept. 12, 2024), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law that bans mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors does not violate the free speech or free exercise rights of mental health professionals. Rejecting petitioner's free speech argument, the majority said in part:

The statute is part of Colorado’s regulation of the healthcare profession and, as the district court correctly found, applies to mental health professionals providing a type of prohibited treatment to minor patients. On the record before us, we agree the MCTL regulates professional conduct that “incidentally involves speech.”....

Ms. Chiles may, in full compliance with the MCTL, share with her minor clients her own views on conversion therapy, sexual orientation, and gender identity. She may exercise her First Amendment right to criticize Colorado for restricting her ability to administer conversion therapy. She may refer her minor clients to service providers outside of the regulatory ambit who can legally engage in efforts to change a client’s sexual orientation or gender identity.....

Rejecting petitioner's free exercise claim, the majority said in part: 

Because, on the record before us, we find Ms. Chiles has failed to show the MCTL lacks neutrality and general applicability, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the MCTL is subject to rational basis review..... And ... the MCTL survives rational basis review...

Judge Hartz dissenting said in part:

The issue in this case is whether to recognize an exception to freedom of speech when the leaders of national professional organizations declare certain speech to be dangerous and demand deference to their views by all members of their professions, regardless of the relevance or strength of their purported supporting evidence. As I understand controlling Supreme Court precedent, the answer is clearly no.... 

In particular, a restriction on speech is not incidental to regulation of conduct when the restriction is imposed because of the expressive content of what is said. And that is the type of restriction imposed on Chiles....

The consensus view of organizations of mental-health professionals in this country is that only gender-affirming care (including the administration of drugs) should be provided to minors, and that attempts to change a minor’s intent to change gender identity are dangerous—significantly increasing suicidal tendencies and causing other psychological injuries. The organizations insist that this view reflects the results of peer-reviewed studies.

But outside this country there is substantial doubt about those studies. In the past few years there has been significant movement in Europe away from American orthodoxy.....

Advocate reports on the decision.

[Corrected: The majority opinion was written by Judge Rossman. Judge Hartz dissented. The prior version of this post incorrectly identified the Judge Rossman as the dissenter instead of being the author of the majority opinion.]

Catholic Counselors Challenge Michigan's Transgender Conversion Therapy Ban

Suit was filed last week in a Michigan federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Michigan statutes that ban counselors from engaging in conversion therapy with minors, particularly as applied to counseling minors regarding their gender identity. The complaint (full text) in Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties v. Whitmer, (WD MI, filed 7/12/2024), alleges that the ban violates counselors' and patients' free speech rights, parents' right to control the upbringing of their children, free exercise rights of plaintiffs and parents, as well as alleging that the statute is void for vagueness.  The complaint reads in part:

115. Plaintiffs intend to continue helping young people live consistently with their own religious beliefs on matters of gender identity and sexuality—including young people who desire to align their gender identity with their biological sex, or who desire to refrain from acting on sexual attractions outside the context of male–female marriage.  

116. HB 4616 prohibits Plaintiffs from using their professional training to help young people who have these goals....

125. Because Plaintiffs are chilled or prohibited from discussing issues of human sexuality and gender identity, their clients are denied access to ideas they wish to hear and to counseling that would help them live consistently with their own personal, religious, and life goals. 

126. Parents of these children are likewise deprived of their right to direct the religious upbringing of their children by obtaining counseling that respects their religious identity. 

127. This acutely impacts religious minorities. Such religious minorities are underrepresented among counselors generally, and it is especially difficult to find counselors willing to counsel minors who are struggling to reconcile their faith with their gender identity and sexuality....

Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the lawsuit. 

Australian State Enacts Elaborate Conversion Therapy Ban

In the Australian state of New South Wales, with assent by the Governor on April 3, the Conversion Practices Ban Bill 2024 became law, effective in April 2025. The new law bans treatments or efforts to change or suppress a person's sexual orientation or gender identity where the treatment or efforts cause substantial mental or physical harm or endanger an individual's life. Violations may be punished with up to 5 years in prison. The law however includes a number of specific examples of both gender-affirming treatment and religious expression that are not prohibited. It provides in part:

A conversion practice does not include— (a) a health service or treatment provided by a registered health practitioner that— (i)  the registered health practitioner has assessed as clinically appropriate ... and (ii) complies with all relevant legal, professional and ethical requirements,

Examples ... [are]  • genuinely assisting an individual who is exploring the individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity or considering or undergoing a gender transition • genuinely assisting an individual who is receiving care and treatment related to the individual’s gender identity • genuinely advising an individual about the potential impacts of gender affirming medical treatment.

(b) genuinely facilitating an individual’s coping skills, development or identity exploration to meet the individual’s needs, including by providing acceptance, support or understanding to the individual, or

(c) the following expressions if the expression is not part of a practice, treatment or sustained effort, directed to changing or suppressing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity— (i) an expression, including in prayer, of a belief or principle, including a religious belief or principle, (ii) an expression that a belief or principle ought to be followed or applied.

(4) To avoid doubt, the following are examples of what does not constitute a conversion practice under this section— (a) stating what relevant religious teachings are or what a religion says about a specific topic, (b)  general requirements in relation to religious orders or membership or leadership of a religious community, (c) general rules in educational institutions, (d)  parents discussing matters relating to sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual activity or religion with their children.

The law also sets out an elaborate civil complaint structure. Unlike most statutes passed by U.S. jurisdictions, the Australian law appears to apply to adults as well as to minors. Law & Religion Australia reports on the new law.

Certiorari Denied in Challenge to Conversion Therapy Ban

Today by a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Tingley v. Ferguson, (Docket No. 22-942, certiorari denied 12/11/2023). In the case the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to Washington state's ban on practicing conversion therapy on minors. (See prior posting.) Justice Thomas filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari, saying in part:

Under SB 5722, licensed counselors can speak with minors about gender dysphoria, but only if they convey the state-approved message of encouraging minors to explore their gender identities. Expressing any other message is forbidden—even if the counselor’s clients ask for help to accept their biological sex. That is viewpoint-based and content-based discrimination in its purest form. As a result, SB 5722 is presumptively unconstitutional, and the state must show that it can survive strict scrutiny before enforcing it.

The Ninth Circuit attempted to sidestep this framework by concluding that counseling is unprotected by the First Amendment because States have traditionally regulated the practice of medicine....

This case is not the first instance of the Ninth Circuit restricting medical professionals’ First Amendment rights, and without the Court’s review, I doubt it will be the last.

Justice Alito filed a brief opinion dissenting from the denial of review. Justice Kavanaugh also indicated that he would grant the petition for certiorari.

Michigan Legislature Bans Conversion Therapy-- 22nd State To Do So

The Michigan legislature yesterday gave final passage to HB 4616 (full text) and HB 4617 (full text), bills which together prohibit mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with a minor. HB4617 contains an elaborate definition of "conversion therapy" which explicitly excludes, among other things, "counseling that provides acceptance, support, or understanding of an individual or facilitates an individual's coping, social support, or identity exploration and development ...  as long as the counseling does not seek to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity."  When signed by the Governor, Michigan will become the 22nd state (plus the District of Columbia) to ban conversion therapy for those under 18. M Live reports on the new legislation.

Supreme Court Review Sought in Challenge to Conversion Therapy Ban

On March 27, a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Tingley v. Ferguson. In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied an en banc rehearing of a 3-judge panel's decision rejecting free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to Washington state's ban on practicing conversion therapy on minors. Conversion therapy encourages change in sexual orientation or gender identity. (See prior posting). SCOTUSblog  reports on the petition for review.

9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Conversion Therapy Ban

In Tingley v. Ferguson, (9th Cir., Jan. 23, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied an en banc rehearing of a 3-judge panel's decision rejecting free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to Washington state's ban on practicing conversion therapy on minors. Judge O’Scannlain, joined by Judges Ikuta, R. Nelson and VanDyke, filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of en banc review, saying in pat:

Our decision in Pickup [v. Brown] is, I suggest, no longer viable. While Pickup may have seen no distinction between “treatments … implemented through speech” and those implemented “through scalpel,” ... the First Amendment recognizes the obvious difference, and protects therapeutic speech in a way it does not protect physical medical procedures....

[T]he panel majority here entirely ignored the First Amendment’s special solicitude for religious speech. Instead, it commended Washington for concluding “that health care providers should not be able to treat a child by such means as telling him that he is ‘the abomination we had heard about in Sunday school’.”...

Judge Bumatay also filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of review, saying in part:

[W]e also cannot ignore that conversion therapy is often grounded in religious faith. According to plaintiff Brian Tingley, a therapist licensed by the State of Washington, his practice of conversion therapy is an outgrowth of his religious beliefs and his understanding of Christian teachings....

Because the speech underpinning conversion therapy is overwhelmingly—if not exclusively—religious, we should have granted Tingley’s petition for en banc review to evaluate his Free Speech claim under a more exacting standard. It may well be the case that, even under heightened review, Washington’s interest in protecting minors would overcome Tingley’s Free Speech challenge. But our court plainly errs by subjecting the Washington law to mere rational-basis scrutiny. 

Court Upholds Conversion Therapy Ban

In Chiles v. Salazar, (D CO, Dec. 19, 2022), a Colorado federal district court rejected constitutional challenges to Colorado's ban on mental health professionals engaging in conversion therapy for minors who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or gender non-conforming. In a suit brought by a licensed counselor, the court found no violation of plaintiff's free speech rights because the Minor Therapy Conversion Law regulates professional conduct rather than speech. Any speech that is affected is incidental to the professional conduct. The court also found no violation of plaintiff's free exercise rights, saying in part:

According to Ms. Chiles, the Minor Therapy Conversion Law is not neutral because it was “well-known” at the time the Colorado General Assembly enacted the Minor Therapy Conversion Law that conversion therapy was primarily sought for religious reasons.... Therefore, Ms. Chiles’ argument goes, the Minor Therapy Conversion Law impermissibly burdens practitioners who hold particular religious beliefs.... The Court disagrees. The Minor Therapy Conversion Law does not “restrict [therapeutic] practices because of their religious nature.”... [T]he Minor Therapy Conversion Law targets specific “modes of therapy” due to their harmful nature— regardless of the practitioner’s personal religious beliefs or affiliations.... [T]he Minor Therapy Conversion law targets these therapeutic modalities because conversion therapy is ineffective and has the potential to “increase [minors’] isolation, self-hatred, internalized stigma, depression, anxiety, and suicidality”....

Christian Counselor Challenges City's Conversion Therapy Ban

Suit was filed yesterday in a Wisconsin federal district court challenging the city of La Crosse's ordinance that prohibits medical and mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with anyone under 18 years of age. The complaint (full text) in Buchman v. City of La Crosse, (WD WI, filed 10/13/2022), alleges that the ban on counseling minors to change their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or behaviors violates free speech and free exercise rights of plaintiff, a licensed counselor who approaches counseling through "a Christ-centered lens". It also alleges that the ban is unconstitutionally vague and violates the Wisconsin Constitution's protection of the right of conscience. The complaint says in part:

The Ordinance thus interferes with Ms. Buchman’s ability to decide matters of faith and doctrine for herself and to then infuse her work with these religious beliefs. It attempts to dictate and influence Ms. Buchman’s resolution of those matters. It forces her to choose between her faith and government penalty.

Wisconsin Spotlight reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit Upholds Washington's Ban On Conversion Therapy

In Tingley v. Ferguson, (9th Cir., Sept. 6, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to Washington state's ban on practicing conversion therapy on minors.  The court said in part:

Washington’s licensing scheme for health care providers, which disciplines them for practicing conversion therapy on minors, does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments. States do not lose the power to regulate the safety of medical treatments performed under the authority of a state license merely because those treatments are implemented through speech rather than through scalpel....

SB 5722 is a neutral law targeted at preventing the harms associated with conversion therapy, and not at the religious exercise of those who wish to practice this type of therapy on minors.

 Judge Bennett concurred in part.  Courthouse News Service reported on the decision.