Title: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case on Conversion Therapy Bans for LGBTQ+ Children
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has chosen not to review a case concerning the enforcement of laws banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children by state and local governments. This decision is at odds with the dissenting opinion of three conservative justices, signaling a significant legal development in the ongoing battle over conversion therapy.
The issue arose when an appellate panel declared local bans on conversion therapy in Florida as unconstitutional restrictions on counselors’ speech. Despite this ruling, the Supreme Court, with the support of Justices Alito and Thomas, opted not to take up the case, citing disagreements among appellate courts. On the other hand, Justice Kavanaugh voted in favor of hearing the case, highlighting the differing perspectives within the Supreme Court itself.
Currently, approximately half of the states in the United States have laws in place that prohibit conversion therapy. The controversy surrounding this controversial practice has intensified, with mental health professionals and LGBTQ+ rights advocates arguing that it is harmful and based on debunked theories.
The case brought before the Supreme Court involved Brian Tingley, a family counselor from Washington, who challenged a state law that threatened therapists engaging in conversion therapy with the revocation of their licenses. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law in a split decision, leading the case to reach the Supreme Court.
It is necessary to note that this is not the first time the Supreme Court has faced challenges to state bans on conversion therapy. However, this particular case found its way to the court following a 2018 ruling that limited California’s ability to impose certain requirements on anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has consistently invalidated local bans on conversion therapy in Florida since the 2018 ruling, creating a fractured legal landscape across the country.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to engage with this contentious issue may have far-reaching implications for LGBTQ+ youth who may be subject to conversion therapy. It adds further momentum to the ongoing debate between those who argue for autonomy in counseling practices and those who advocate for the protection and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals.
As various legal battles continue, advocates and opponents of conversion therapy are closely watching for further developments and potential efforts to resolve the disagreements among appellate courts.
“Travel aficionado. Incurable bacon specialist. Tv evangelist. Wannabe internet enthusiast. Typical creator.”