Supremes Turn Away Challenge To Law Prohibiting Conversion Therapy

 The Supreme Court said on Monday that it would not hear a First Amendment challenge to a Washington State law banning professional counseling services intended to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Brett M. Kavanaugh dissented.

The challenged law forbids licensed therapists there from performing conversion therapy, which it defines to include “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” The law permits counseling that promotes “acceptance, support, and understanding.”

Many states have similar laws, which are supported by leading medical groups. Brian Tingley, a licensed family counselor, challenged the constitutionality of the Washington State law in federal court, saying it violated his rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.

In dissent on Monday, Justice Thomas wrote that the question posed by Mr. Tingley’s appeal was substantial and deserved the Supreme Court’s attention. 

“This petition asks us to consider whether Washington can censor counselors who help minors accept their biological sex,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Because this question has divided the courts of appeals and strikes at the heart of the First Amendment, I would grant review.”

“This case presents a question of national importance,” he wrote. “In recent years, 20 states and the District of Columbia have adopted laws prohibiting or restricting the practice of conversion therapy. It is beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech, and all restrictions on speech merit careful scrutiny.”

Justice Kavanaugh noted that he would have granted review but gave no reasons.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against Mr. Tingley, saying the government was free to regulate the conduct of medical professionals.

“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,” Judge Ronald M. Gould wrote for the panel.

He added that the law regulated only Mr. Tingley’s professional conduct and only when minors were involved. The law, the judge wrote, allowed Mr. Tingley to communicate with the public about conversion therapy, to express his personal views to all of his patients, to practice conversion therapy on adults and to refer minors to counselors not licensed by the state.

 

Mr. Tingley is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian law firm and advocacy group that has litigated many cases for clients opposed to abortion, insurance coverage for contraception, and gay and transgender rights. The group has won a series of victories at the Supreme Court, most recently on behalf of a Colorado web designer who said she did not want to create websites celebrating same-sex weddings.

Got a news tip about the courts?If you have information to share about the Supreme Court or other federal courts, please send us a secure tip at nytimes.com/tips.

In a petition seeking Supreme Court review in the case, Tingley v. Ferguson, No. 22-942, the group said another one of its victories required a decision in Mr. Tingley’s favor. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that California could not require religiously oriented “crisis pregnancy centers” to supply women with information about how to end their pregnancies.

Meet The Times’s Supreme Court Reporter

Adam Liptak, who has been covering the Supreme Court since 2008, started at The Times as a copy boy in 1984. He left to attend Yale Law School, became a practicing lawyer and worked in The Times’s corporate legal department before returning to the newsroom. Learn about how he approaches covering the court.

 Robert W. Ferguson, the Washington State attorney general, responded that his state’s law was both consistent with Supreme Court precedent and a crucial tool to prevent grave harm.

“For decades,” the state’s brief said, “this court has held that states can regulate conduct by licensed professionals, even if the regulations incidentally impact speech.” It added that “conversion therapy puts minors at risk of serious, long-lasting harms, including increased risks of suicide and depression.”

Religion, Gay Rights, and the Courts

Still, this new Court is Not Non-Evangelical's friend

Supreme Court Backs Web Designers Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage

June 30, 2023

A New Clash Between Faith and Gay Rights Arrived at a Changed Supreme Court

Dec. 4, 2022

Supreme Court Backs Catholic Agency in Case on Gay Rights and Foster Care

June 17, 2021

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. More about Adam Liptak.

The New York Times