Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissent in the 8-1 decision released Tuesday.
joined the court's conservative justices in a ruling in favor of a challenge to Colorado's law banning"conversion therapy for minors."The court held that the law, when applied to talk therapy provided by Kaley Chiles, who is a licensed counselor in Colorado, regulates speech based on viewpoint.
The court said lower courts failed to apply"sufficiently rigorous" First Amendment scrutiny. The court said Colorado's law also"goes further to prescribe what views she may and may not express, discriminating on the basis of viewpoint." The court said the state cannot establish that the application of its law to Chiles falls within permissible content regulation. Kagan filed a concurring opinion joined by Sotomayor, noting that"if Colorado had instead enacted a content-based but viewpoint-neutral law, it would raise a different and more difficult question." "Fuller consideration of that question, though, can wait for another day. We need not here decide how to assess viewpoint-neutral laws regulating health providers’ expression because, as the Court holds, Colorado’s is not one," Kagan wrote. The court's decision reversed a judgment by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.The case centers around a law adopted by Colorado in 2019 prohibiting licensed counselors from engaging in “conversion therapy” with minors. The law forbids"any practice or treatment...that attempts...to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” It also forbids any effort"to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” Chiles filed a lawsuit against the state and sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing the law against her. She argued that the law violated her First Amendment right to speak with her clients in ways she believes might help them reach “their own goals.” Chiles has clients with varying goals, including some who"are content with" their sexual orientation and gender identity and others who are hoping to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony" with their bodies, the court said. Chiles helps clients reach their stated goals and"does not prescribe any medicines, perform any physical treatments, or engage in any coercive or aversive practices," the court said. The district court and the appeals court found that Chiles was not entitled to the relief she sought. They determined that the law triggered a “rational basis review” under the First Amendment, requiring the State to show that its law is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest, which they said the state satisfied.The Court ruled in favor of Chiles, finding that the lower courts"failed to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny in this case." "Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, delivering the Court's majority opinion."It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an 'egregious' assault on both of those commitments." Jackson, the lone dissent in the case, argued that states have traditionally regulated the provision of medical care without incident. "The Constitution does not pose a barrier to reasonable regulation of harmful medical treatments just because substandard care comes via speech instead of scalpel. Accordingly, I cannot agree with the majority’s analysis or its conclusions in this case," Jackson wrote.There are nine Supreme Court justices. The justices are Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas, Kagan, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Jackson., ours is different: The Courageous Center—it's not"both sides," it's sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you., you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy: Ad-free browsing, exclusive content and editor conversations.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
U.S. Supreme Court to examine birthright citizenship WednesdayThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case to determine to whom the United States can extend birthright citizenship.
Read more »
Supreme Court fight over birthright citizenship threatens ‘chaos’ in proving newborns’ statusJustice Brett Kavanaugh sounded like a fired-up prosecutor last year as he shot off a withering series of nuts-and-bolts questions about how President Donald Trump would carry out his plan to rewrite of the way birthright citizenship has been understood in the United States for more than a century.
Read more »
Much is at stake for The City as Supreme Court takes up birthright citizenshipJustices will hear case Wednesday that has the potential to affect thousands of residents
Read more »
As birthright citizenship goes to Supreme Court, here's how Americans feel about itThe Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on whether all children born in the United States can continue to automatically receive citizenship.
Read more »
The birthright citizenship case at the Supreme Court hits close to home for this immigrant motherAn Argentine emigre in Florida quickly got her newborn son a U.S. passport last year.
Read more »
Sonia Sotomayor Warns Supreme Court Refusing to Enforce Its Own PrecedentsThe opinion was issued in the case of James Skinner v Louisiana, which centers on a challenge of a 2001 murder conviction.
Read more »