The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: SVPete on March 31, 2026, 11:45:47 AM
-
UPDATE: SCOTUS Rules in ‘Conversion Therapy’ Case in Colorado
https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2026/03/31/breaking-scotus-ends-ban-on-conversion-therapy-helping-gender-dysphoric-individuals-n4951283 (https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2026/03/31/breaking-scotus-ends-ban-on-conversion-therapy-helping-gender-dysphoric-individuals-n4951283)
The U.S. Supreme Court just made a decision crucial for scientific and moral sanity, striking down a ban on “conversion therapy” for minors as unconstitutional.
SCOTUS Wire shockingly reported that the vote was 8-1 in determining that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy constitutes viewpoint discrimination and is therefore a violation of the First Amendment. The case is Chiles v. Salazar, pitting clinical mental health expert and therapist Kaley Chiles against the executive director of Colorado’s regulatory department.
Notably, based on the case summary shared by SCOTUS Wire, Chiles — who uses talk therapy — does not suggest conversion therapy if her minor patients are already committed to transgender ideology. She only helps those who want to treat their gender dysphoria. She’s not, therefore, at exactly the point one might wish, given that transgenderism is literally impossible, but the key is that the Supreme Court ruled that conversion therapy for minors is protected by the Constitution. That can be the basis for bigger and more comprehensive victories in the future.
Editor's note: SCOTUS did not rule that Colorado's law was unconstitutional per se, as the original report indicates. It ruled that lower courts applied the wrong standard in reviewing Kaley Chiles' case. The court strongly signaled that the law could be unconstitutional when specifically applied to "talk therapy" and ordered the lower court to apply strict scrutiny in reviewing Chiles' case. SCOTUS reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case back to it. We apologize to our readers for this error.
If I understand this correctly, the USSC, 8-1, ruled that the First Amendment applies to the case and the law and that lower courts need to apply the proper standard ("Compelling State Interest"?) to the case. I suspect that the sole dissenter, K-J realized that when considered by that standard, Chiles will likely win.