A divided Supreme Court on Monday rejected a Christian group’s free speech challenge to laws in California and 21 other states that ban licensed counselors from using “conversion therapy” on children and teens.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed dissents, and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said he also voted to hear the case.

“There is a fierce public debate about how best to help minors with gender dysphoria,” Thomas said, and states like Washington and California have “silenced one side of this debate.”

But a majority of the other justices disagreed, refusing to hear a case that conflicted with state laws.

Lawyers with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group, argue that states should not be allowed to “censor” counselors who espouse Christian values.

They filed to challenge a Washington state law that they say violates marriage and family counselor Brian Tingley’s rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.

Tingley “assists clients with a variety of issues, including sexuality and gender identity,” ADF lawyers said in their petition to the court. “As a practicing Christian, Tingley bases human identity on God’s design rather than on a person’s feelings or desires. Many of his clients agree and seek his advice precisely because they want to align their identity with their faith.”

The law in question prohibits licensed counselors from using any regime that aims to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. State lawmakers said this “therapy” has been proven to be ineffective and significantly increases the risk of youth suicide.

When the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California’s First-in-the-Nation law in 2014, it ruled that the state had broad authority to regulate the practice of medicine and “professional speech” about medical treatments.

The appeals court applied the same rule last year in upholding Washington’s law. “States do not lose the power to regulate the safety of medical treatments performed under the authority of a state license simply because those treatments are administered through speech rather than through the use of a scalpel,” Judge Ronald Gould wrote. “Since 2015, every major medical, psychiatric, psychological and professional mental health organization has opposed the use of conversion therapy,” he added.

But five years ago, the Supreme Court disagreed with the 9th Circuit’s view that “professional speech” could be strictly regulated. Citing the First Amendment, the justices voted 5-4 to set aside part of a California law and rule

That

“Pro-life pregnancy crisis centers” could not be required to inform patients that they did not perform abortions and sometimes did not employ medical staff.

The

ADF attorneys argued that the ruling undermined the 9th Circuit’s decision in Tingley’s case. They claimed he is subject to state fines for “pure speech” because he holds a different point of view.

“A care provider who encourages gay behavior or helps a young person to adopt a transgender identity is free to do so. But a counselor discussing a client’s wishes does not want to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage between one man and one woman, or “Aligning the client’s sense of identity with biological sex risks high penalties,” they said .

Monday’s order denying review marks at least the fourth time since 2014 that the court has declined to review state laws restricting conversion therapy.

March

The Supreme Court’s current conservative majority has shown a willingness to rule on free speech claims involving religion.

In 2022, the justices reversed and upheld the 9th Circuit

in Kennedy vs. Breme

about a free speech claim by a football coach who challenged school officials and insisted on praying at the 50-yard line.

(Kennedy vs. Bremerton)

In June of this year, the court ruled in 303 Creative vs. Elenis agrees

the

Lawyers for ADF and a self-employed website designer in Colorado ruled that they had a free speech right to refuse to design wedding websites for same-sex couples based on her Christian beliefs.

(303 Creative vs. Elenis) Monday’s decision to deny review marks at least the fourth time such an appeal has been denied, but the court now has a much stronger conservative majority. //how far back are we talking? “Are these cases involving conversion therapy?”

In Defense of Washington Law,

stands

Atty. Gen. Robert Ferguson said the First Amendment protects a person’s right to say harmful and hateful things in public. “But if a teenager says to his state-licensed therapist, ‘I think I’m gay,’ and the therapist responds, ‘Well, then God hates you,’ or ‘Well, then you should kill yourself,'” the therapist lose his license.” and being sued for malpractice. No reasonable person would disagree with that.”

He said that under the law, therapists can “discuss conversion therapy with minor clients, recommend that it be carried out by others (e.g. religious advisors), promote it publicly or privately…capacity as licensed therapists,” he told the court.

Equal Rights Washington, the state’s largest LGBTQ+ advocacy group, said Tingley claims “he just wants to express his ideas without state censorship,” but that is not the relief he is seeking. Instead, he seeks Washington’s approval for his therapeutic methods. he wants to tell his patients that Washington State considers him an expert and that his treatment methods are an exercise of that expertise. The Constitution does not require Washington to endorse a method of treatment that Washington determines is ineffective and unsafe.”