on March 10, 2025 at 11:10 am
Supreme Court to Review Colorado’s Ban on Conversion Therapy and Other Cases
The Supreme Court has announced its intention to examine the constitutionality of Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy,” a practice aimed at altering an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. This decision arose from a recent conference of the justices, where they reviewed a range of cases.
Background on the Case
The challenge against Colorado’s law was initiated by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and Christian practitioner. Chiles argues that the law infringes upon her First Amendment rights regarding free speech and the exercise of her faith. She expresses that while she does not promise solutions to issues concerning gender identity or sexual orientation, she advocates for clients to embrace their God-given identities.
Previously, the Supreme Court declined to engage with a similar case pertaining to a law in Washington state that restricts licensed therapists from using conversion therapy on minors. During that instance, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito expressed dissent regarding the decision not to review.
Legal Proceedings So Far
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Chiles’s arguments, stating that Colorado’s legislation was enacted based on credible reports illustrating the dangers of conversion therapy. They emphasized that the law governs the conduct of therapists rather than their speech. Following this ruling, Chiles sought the Supreme Court’s review, noting the adverse effects faced by marginalized young individuals in states with such restrictions.
Additional Supreme Court Cases
In addition, the Supreme Court is set to address procedural rules applicable to medical malpractice lawsuits filed in federal court. The case arose from a situation in Delaware where Harold Berk’s lawsuit was dismissed due to his failure to meet a state-mandated requirement for an “affidavit of merit” from an expert witness. This case raises the question of whether state rules can impose additional burdens on plaintiffs in federal court, contrasting with established federal procedural standards.
The justices also declined a request from 19 Republican-led states to directly challenge lawsuits initiated by five other states against oil and gas companies. These lawsuits assert that the companies misled the public regarding the climate impacts of fossil fuels.
Ongoing Legal Developments
Furthermore, the Court did not take action on significant petitions concerning Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons and a Massachusetts student’s freedom of expression regarding a T-shirt that asserts “There Are Only Two Genders.” The justices are scheduled to reconvene on March 21 to consider new petitions for review, with decisions expected shortly thereafter.
This coverage provides insight into critical upcoming legal challenges that may shape the landscape of American law, particularly regarding free speech, medical practices, and state versus federal jurisdiction.
