The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Who Was The Fourth Vote For Cert In Chiles v. Salazar?
In December 2023, only three Justices would have granted in Tingley v. Ferguson, which presented the same issue.
In December 2023, the Court denied cert in Tingley v. Ferguson. This case presented the question of whether a prohibition on conversion therapy violates the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh would have granted cert. There was a square conflict between the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, as Justice Alito pointed out in his dissent. At the time, I speculated that Justice Gorsuch--a usual First Amendment stalwart--was unwilling to vote to grant cert in his LGBT-related case.
Fast-forward to March 2025. The Court granted cert in Chiles v. Salazar, on appeal from the Tenth Circuit, which presents the same issue as Tingley.
Who was the fourth vote in Chiles? Did Justice Gorsuch change his mind on the issue? Was Justice Barrett satisfied that sufficient percolation had occurred after another split with the Tenth Circuit? Perhaps Barrett or Gorsuch wanted to take this case only after Skrmetti was settled? Perhaps the climate of the day on transgender issues, in the wake of Skrmetti, make this issue more palatable? Who knows?
Chiles will be argued on October 7, the second day of the term.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
it seems like an easy case to me. If the therapist is not prescribing any medication and no medical procedures are involved, and all they are doing is talking, I don't know how this isn't strict scrutiny.
Liscense counsels are a medical provider and thus must adhere to professional standards. Pushing your religion on patients is not allowed.
If the state outlawed conversion therapy only because it believed it was based in religious practice, you would almost certainly trigger strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.
Conversation therapy is child abuse.
Now do sex change surgeries on minors
Aren't they also a form of conversion therapy, just the other way around, and perhaps using more metal tools?
Ouch!
Very rarely happens. And it is with the consent of the minor. In conversion therapy the child is forced to do it.
Now do sex change surgeries on minors
Oh, the stupidity of the MAGA cultist.
There's exactly one difference between conversation therapy and "sex change" surgeries, and it's precisely the same difference as the one between ivermectin and paxlovid: the latter works and the former doesn't.
You're too stupid to realize that if conversion therapy actually worked, the left would love it! You can be whatever gender / sexual orientation you want, just by going to therapy! There's nothing that would make the left happier.
Your numb skull hasn't figured out that if conversion therapy worked, it wouldn't only make gay people straight. If your son wanted to be gay, done! Probably by the school's guidance counselor.
If your daughter was born with six fingers, you'd cut one off. It's standard medical practice, and it works. It's not that you dislike surgeries on minors. You only dislike this one. And it's not that you like conversion therapy, you only like conversion therapy in your preferred direction. It's so blatantly ideology-driven it's funny.
MAGA: Be Everything You Claim to Hate
The left: If it works, great, if not, ditch it.
The right: If it aligns with my cult's mythology, great, if not, ditch it.
Would you be so kind as to learn how to spell, and then learn how the law works, before you inflict your opinions on the rest of us?
Whatever word did Whoever mispell? And who gives a (redacted)?? Seriously you’re (Grammar Nazis) next on the list after the (redacted)
Frank
I suspect that the spelling errors complained of may include "liscense counsels" and/or "conversation therapy."
Although under current doctrine I think that is right, it strikes me that the state ought to be allowed to regulate speech that is a licensed medical procedure when the state believes the procedure (even though it is speech) is quackery (Hat Tip to wvattorney13).
Or perhaps go in the direction of less State and more freedom.
Wouldn't that be for the voters and their elected representatives to decide?
Pardon me, buster. You are entitled to say "the state ought to ...", but I say "perhaps go in the direction of ..." and suddenly I'm the dictator?
Freedom for minors can be tricky. Freedom of parents to impose their will on their minor offspring provides lots of freedom for the parents, but less freedom for the minor offspring.
What? Josh (
R
), you're smarter than this. What in the world do you think triggers strict scrutiny here (especially post-Skrmetti)?Josh (
B
) seems to think Skrmetti stands for some sort of anti-LGBT momentum. I think it stands for judicial restraint in this area. Judicial restraint is the "climate of the day" on the Court much more so than the transgender culture wars will ever be.Speech (noting, that I think strict scrutiny ought not apply).
SCOTUS has ruled that states can regulate the speech of abortion providers. Let’s see how SCOTUS Calvinball their way to the opposite ruling.
The compelled speech in Planned Parenthood was incidental to a regulation of conduct (abortion). In contrast in this case, if the therapist is using only speech, the regulation is of that speech directly.
The clear Calvinball is (as the dissent explained in the relevant case), the Supreme Court treated reproductive health care differently depending on the nature of providers.
The "crisis pregnancy centers" regularly had many indicators of medicine, not mere speech, but they were treated differently.
Also, Rust v. Sullivan allowed the denial of governmental funding even when the clinic did not perform an abortion.
A Chick who knows “Calvin-ball”??
OK makes me wonder if you’re really a Chick, but Mrs Drackman is a Mets fan and knows her Split Finger from a Cutter, so
I’ll do the “Very ashamed loser hop, skip, jump, dance and shout “Cobbes Rules!!” 10 times
This goes against the side I would typically come down on, but why can't a state regulate the practice of medicine in a way that says conversion therapy is quackery and not supported by the State's public policy?
I understand that the State cannot ban me from posting on the internet certain aspects of conversion therapy or telling someone directly that they can change their sexual orientation, but if I was a licensed therapist, why can't a state say, "Conversion therapy is not recognize medicine. You cannot teach that theory consistent with your license."
I would disagree with that, but I'm not empowered to regulate medicine.
I mean, we wouldn't allow doctors to tell patients to bleed their wounds or use leeches. Under the challenger's theory here, wouldn't that be a violation of a doctor's free speech?
I agree the state should be able to ban what it thinks is quackery.
However there is a distinction between telling patients to use leeches and this case. The former is a regulation of speech (the instructions) incidental to a regulation of conduct (using leeches). For the latter, the speech itself is the medicine.
I'm not familiar with conversion therapy, but after the meeting with the therapist, isn't the patient supposed to put those words into practice by engaging in some conduct to rid himself of homosexuality? Or does he just listen and it all magically changes?
As a lawyer, there is a variety of speech that I cannot engage in and keep my law license.
The petitioner in this case uses only speech.
Don't lawyers use primarily speech and writing?
What happens if a lawyer gives consistently inaccurate and harmful advice to clients?
That is a very compelling analogy.
Normally, I oppose licensing across the board, believing that customers are better at sorting out bad doctors and bad lawyers than licensing boards ever can be. But they do waste a lot of resources along the way to demonstrating how incompetent they are. And if the state can regulate the bad practice of law which is entirely speech, why can't they also regulate the bad practice of speech-based medicine?
The petitioner in this case uses only speech.
The therapist in the leech hypothetical also uses only speech. In both cases, the speech is incidental to conduct (the things that the patient is supposed to do as part of the "therapy").
In other words, your big "incidental to conduct" insight applies to the conduct of the therapist, not the conduct of the patient. There's no such thing as speech incidental to someone else's conduct. That's called "being convincing," sort of the core of the First Amendment if you think about it.
If a doctor has a First Amendment right to perform conversion therapy, they also have a First Amendment right to recommend leech therapy.
What conduct of the therapist?
Performing an abortion.
Do those speech restrictions satisfy strict scrutiny?
Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals conducted a strict scrutiny analysis. If SCOTUS determines that strict scrutiny applies, the disposition should be a remand to the District Court with instructions to conduct that analysis in the first instance, with the burden of persuasion on the government.
It appears to me that the challenged Act is both a content-based and viewpoint-based prohibition of speech, requiring strict scrutiny review. That does not mean that the plaintiff is necessarily entitled to a preliminary injunction. According to the Tenth Circuit opinion, the plaintiff did not request an evidentiary hearing and submitted no evidence below. The plaintiff made no complaint on appeal that the District Court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous.
Does anyone dispute that the State's interest in protecting the health and well being of minors undergoing talk therapy is compelling? Suppose a state statute prohibited a psychotherapist from recommending that a minor consume a lethal dose of strychnine to cure depression. (The effectiveness would be 100%, but the side effects can kill the patient.) That regulation would be a content-based prohibition of speech, but it could easily survive strict scrutiny review.
The compelled speech upheld in Planned Parenthood was not subject to strict scrutiny even though it was both content and viewpoint based because the regulation only incidentally burdened speech. It remains to be seen whether the prohibition in this case gets the same treatment.
Why do you think this is viewpoint-based? It also bans trying to turn people gay.
But states can't tell doctors they can't talk to their patients about guns.
What's the difference?
Therapist should be able to talk to their patients about almost anything, although they should not be able to encourage suicide, drug use, or other illegal conduct like sex with minors.
What if the state doesn’t prohibit the speech, but merely prohibits you from calling yourself a state-licensed therapists.
After all, education consists only of speech. Does the First Amendment prohibit states from regulating organizations which call themselves universities and which grant things called devress? If you don’t call yourself by certain words like college or university and you don’t call the piece of paper you hand out a degree, you can hand out any piece of paper you want.
What makes this any different? Why should state-licensed therapists be treated differently from state-approved universities?
Can the state deny university accreditation based on the viewpoints expressed by the university?
Absolutely. A university that taught the earth is flat and the stars are painted on a dome over the disk wouldn’t be approved to give advanced degrees in fields like astronomy. Similarly, a university that taught that disease is caused by imbalances in humors wouldn’t be able to give a degree in medicine.
The claim that the earth is flat almost certainly doesn't get First Amendment protection because it is "purely factual and uncontroversial information about the terms under which . . . services will be available" (quoting NIFLA). The Court may view the speech components of conversion therapy in the same manner. Or not.
Separately from whether the claim is controversial or not, it doesn’t strike me as having anything to do with the terms under which services will be available.
Accreditation is a close enough analog to a license to conduct a service.
The claim that the earth is flat almost certainly doesn't get First Amendment protection because it is "purely factual and uncontroversial information about the terms under which . . . services will be available"
What a very strange thing to say! "Thou shalt not teach that the earth is flat" might be purely factual and uncontroversial information about the terms under which services will be available. But "the earth is flat" isn't! The terms under which services will be available depend not at all on the flatness of the earth.
The terms of the service (in this case accreditation) are contingent on not teaching that the earth is flat.
Yeah. That's what I said, and you're begging the question.
I suspect a majority will say that liberal states get to prohibit gay conversion therapy (by licensed therapists) for the same constitutional issues that conservative states get to prohibit trans conversion therapy, and merits of the underlying policy issues are none of the judiciary’s business in either case.
Skrmetti was about hormones and puberty blockers, not speech.
Under Skrmetti, states would still be free to ban forms of conversion therapy that involved ingestion or injection of hormones (or hydroxychloroquine, or Provasic), or advising patients to do the same.
I agree. I think you might have a Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Barrett ready to sign on to something like that.
It might be the effective result without gaining a majority. Thomas and Alito might roll up the constitution, smoke it, and discern in the resulting haze of penumbras and emanations that trans conversion therapy is bad but gay conversion therapy is good, while Kagan, Sotromeyor, and Jackson might roll up that same constitution, smoke it with the same number of puffs, and discern the opposite.
I don't see Kagan engaging in ideological puff puff give. She's too smart to fall into that trap and has used stare decisis as cover in similar past situations. She'll sign on to whatever Kavanaugh, Roberts, Gorsuch and Barrett come up with.
The trans conversion therapy at issue before the Supreme Court involved the injection of cross-sex hormones. The question of whether states could prohibit counselors from counseling minors that they were born as the wrong gender was not before the Court at the time.
Surgery and prescriptions =/= speech
You don’t think the judiciary has any businesses taking up free speech cases?
There is a huge difference between conversion therapy and gender affirming care.
Conversion therapy doesnt work ( except perhaps in extremely rare occasions) but at the same time, conversion doesnt cause physical harm, and what ever mental harm is caused, it is short lived.
"Gender affirming care" inflicts serious and often permanent irreversible physical harm.
That is a huge distinctive difference. Nobody should be trying to equate the two.
Oops
That’s your opinion. But obviously there are people who disagree.
Such as medical professionals.
The "sufficient percolation" reason and dealing with trans medical care first are both reasonable guesses. The Roberts Court repeatedly seems to want to do only one thing at a time.
The lower court held that the therapist here took part in "treatment" provided by licensed medical professionals. She can discuss conversion therapy in various respects.
It is the conversion therapy of minors specifically that is being restricted. This can be regulated more closely than mere speech. One example provided is the rules set forth for dieticians regarding nutritional counseling.
The state has more authority to regulate medical professionals, including if speech is involved. There is a long history of state regulation of medicine.
(As they do with lawyers and various other professions.)
The opinion quotes Planned Parenthood v. Casey to apply a rule for "any medical procedure." There is no separate rule for verbal mental health care. Therapists are regulated.
The opinion does not accept a "talk only" rule. Even if that were applied, conversion therapy includes a variety of techniques. It would be a limited result to protect "mere" talk therapy. Also, if necessary, the government argues that strict scrutiny can be met.
Finally, as suggested by another comment, it is rather artificial to consider this as "mere" talk therapy. It is speech mixed with action. Conversion therapy is directly related to who you are and how you will act. It is effectively speech brigaded with action.
perhaps strict scrutiny burden can be carried by the state, but clearly that is the standard that should be applied in this case.
The Supreme Court differentiated regulated speech that was “part of the practice of medicine, subject to reasonable licensing and regulation by the State.” [NIFLA v. Becerra]
A lower standard than strict scrutiny is applied there.
The law here bans "any practice or treatment" involving conversion therapy. It is a regulation of the practice of medicine.
It is not a regulation of speech as speech. Speech is but one method used for "practice of medicine" involved.
I don't know how "clear" it is that strict scrutiny is required.
Also from NIFLA: "States may regulate professional conduct, even though that conduct incidentally involves speech."
So, it's not clear whether "part of the practice of medicine" only permits regulations (not subject to strict scrutiny) of speech that is connected to non-speech medical practice, or permits regulations (which if true, would also not be subject to strict scrutiny) of speech that is medical practice in and of itself.
“the climate of the day on transgender issues“
How would you describe the “climate of the day” in your own words, Josh?
Conversation therapy of minors is child abuse No one has a religious right to hurt children..
It may or may not be abuse, yet the mental damage is short lived with no physical damage.
On the other hand, gender affirming care causes serious and often permanent physical damage.
Huge distinction worth noting.
-
So child abuse is OK if you don't leave a bruise.
No I am not in favor of conversion therapy . Fortunately , the damage is only short lived.
You on the other hand are on record supporting the permanent physical damage caused by gender affirming care.
Chemically altering or cutting off body parts leaves more than a bruise.
Its concept that advocates either dont grasp or they dont really care about the welfare of the people they claim to care for. Faux concern
It is about consent vs non consent.
Minors can’t legally consent (Hey Now!)
This is not about legality. This is about the major difference between a person wanting treatment because they think it will help them greatly and being force into treatment because their parents are bigoted shits.
I hope you'll forgive the questions and accept that they're offered honestly. My knowledge of conversion therapy is very much surface level.
Is all conversion therapy religious in nature? If it is not, do your objections still remain?
Throughout the comments, I've regularly seen conversion therapy referred to as quakery. Why is that? Do we have a success/failure rate for the practice? And is there any avenue to improve on it if it is allowed? The shorter version - is the objection that the therapy can never work, or that it should not be allowed to work?
Thanks for any references or information.
Conversion therapy is child abuse with or without religion. However non-religious is far less common.
MollyGodiva 29 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Conversion therapy is child abuse with or without religion.
As stated from a person who supports "gender affirming care" - real abuse / pure evil
As opposed to chemicals that can cause lifelong damage to a persons reproductive organs.
Especially “Monogamous Marriage”
This isn't an LGBTQ+ issue to me. Both sides that support conversion therapy and those that oppose it make a mistake by framing it that way. To my non-lawyer mind, the central question is this:
How do free speech and free exercise rights interact with the government interest to ensure that medical and mental health therapies won't cause harm to patients?
Businesses don't have a 1st Amendment right to commit fraud upon their customers when far less is at stake than in any kind of therapy. The harm caused by snake oil therapies can be serious, lasting, and even fatal. Regulation of the medical and psychological professions is a compelling government interest that meets the first part of strict scrutiny, I would think.
A law banning conversion therapy specifically, may not satisfy strict scrutiny because it is aimed at a particular idea and service. Showing that the groups offering it are being targeted for their beliefs and because the state doesn't like their speech is certainly plausible.
If, on the other hand, the conservative legal position is that they have a right to offer conversion therapy even if a government restriction on it comes about because of content-neutral scientific requirements for evidence of safety and effectiveness, then I don't think they'd have a valid 1st Amendment claim. But, that's just like, you know, my opinion, man.
Adam=Eve, not Adam=Steve
Although I can handle some Girl-on-Girl, who didn’t like that Britney/Christina Kiss??(OK besides you Homos)
Frank
No, Frank, Adam does not equal Eve. Indeed, many of us celebrate the differences between the two.