Supreme Court Hands Down Major Conservative Win In Near-Unanimous Decision

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Tuesday in favor of a Christian counselor who challenged a Colorado law she said could punish her for helping gender-confused children become comfortable with their own bodies instead of pursuing irreversible transgender medical procedures.

The case pitted the State of Colorado against counselor Kaley Chiles, who challenged a Colorado law that prohibited counseling that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” Chiles said that the law violates her First Amendment rights and has prevented her from accepting several clients.

“We conclude that the courts below failed to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny in this case. Start with the most obvious point. While the First Amendment protects many and varied forms of expression, the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech. And that is exactly the kind of expression in which Ms. Chiles seeks to engage,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.

Chiles, who was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), argued that Colorado’s law, passed in 2019, is a direct attack on professional speech.

“When my young clients come to me for counsel, they often want to discuss issues of gender and sexuality. I look forward to being able to help them when they choose the goal of growing comfortable with their bodies,” Chiles said after the ruling. “Counselors walking alongside these young people shouldn’t be limited to promoting state-approved goals like gender transition, which often leads to harmful drugs and surgeries. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory for counselors and, more importantly, kids and families everywhere.”

The court agreed that Colorado’s law did not hold up to First Amendment scrutiny.

“Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, as applied to Ms. Chiles’s talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny,” the majority held.

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter.

Jackson said in her dissent that Colorado’s law was constitutional because it was the state regulating healthcare.

“In my view, it cannot also be the case that Colorado’s decision to restrict a dangerous therapy modality that, incidentally, involves provider speech is presumptively unconstitutional,” she said. “In concluding otherwise, the Court’s opinion misreads our precedents, is unprincipled and unworkable, and will eventually prove untenable for those who rely upon the long-recognized responsibility of States to regulate the medical profession for the protection of public health.”

The ruling is expected to have broad implications for similar laws, called “conversion therapy bans,” across the country. Over 20 states have passed similar statutes and could now be in legal jeopardy.

This is a breaking story. Refresh page for updates.