Updates live from the Supreme Court: judges to hear the case of conversion therapy

State legislators adopted the restrictions in 2019, in response to the conclusions of large medical associations according to which conversion therapy is ineffective and potentially harmful to young people. The result of the case has implications for Colorado and more than 20 other states with similar laws.

A central question for judges is whether the law of Colorado is an authorized regulation of professional conduct or an unconstitutional violation of freedom of expression.

The status of colorado prohibits “any practice or treatment” which tries to change the “gender expressions of a minor or to eliminate or reduce attraction or sexual or romantic feelings towards individuals of the same sex”.

Colorado officials have never applied the measure, which includes fines of up to $ 5,000 for each possible violation and suspension or revocation of an advisor’s license. The law includes a religious exemption for those “engaged in the practice of the religious ministry”.

The Colorado Democratic Attorney General, Phil Weiser, says states have long regulated medical practices, including speech treatments, to protect patients from lower quality care. The law, he says, concerns professional conduct, not a speech.

The Supreme Court has published in recent years a series of decisions in favor of religious, especially conservative Christians. In 2023, the court rose to the side of a web designer in Colorado who declared that she had the right to the first amendment to refuse to design marriage sites for same -sex couples. In 2022, the court declared that a secondary school coach had the constitutional right to pray on the 50 yards line after the matches of his team.

The conversion therapy affair is heard a few months after the conservative majority of the Court confirmed a law of Tennessee prohibiting certain medical treatments for young transgender people whom the state deemed dangerous. Later, this quarter, judges will also hear the challenges of state laws prohibiting transgender athletes from participating in the sports of girls and women.

In the Colorado case, the Trump administration and the legal team of Ms. Chiles said that the law should be subject to a demanding standard of judicial control which would oblige the State to show that its law is increasing a convincing government interest and is closely designed to do so. If the law was subject to this higher standard, say the challengers, the courts would find that it will surely violate the Constitution.

Colorado officials argue that the law should not be subject to strict examination, but says that it should survive even if the judges disagree.

Ms. Chiles contributes to the opinions of groups, in particular the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association, who say that trying to change the sexual orientation of minors or gender identity presents them an increased risk of depression, anxiety and suicide. The organizations, said Ms. Chiles, have not specifically examined the type of therapy by the voluntary speech she wishes to provide. Ms. Chiles said that she did not practice “reverse techniques”, which may include an electric shock or chemically induced nausea.

In general, the first amendment prevents the government from restricting the speech because it does not like content or message. But the Supreme Court said that certain restrictions to govern a person’s conduct are authorized even if they accidentally load the speech.

The problem divided the lower courts. A divided panel of the American Court of Appeal for the tenth circuit confirmed the law of Colorado.

The judges are likely to discuss a 2018 case in which Judge Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, invalidated a Californian law which required that the pregnancy crisis centers display opinions that free or low cost abortions were available for low -income women through public programs.

“Speech is not unprotected simply because it is pronounced by” professionals “, wrote Thomas to the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra.