The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Why an 8-1 Supreme Court just ruled in favor of anti-LGBTQ “conversion therapy”

Sadly, the Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar is correct.

There was never much doubt how this Supreme Court would decide Chiles v. Salazar, a lawsuit challenging a Colorado law that bars licensed therapists from providing “conversion therapy,” or counseling that seeks to convert LGBTQ patients into straight and cisgender people. This Court, which has a 6-3 Republican majority, typically rules in favor of religious conservatives when their interests conflict with those of queer people, even when religious conservatives raise fairly aggressive legal arguments.

In Chiles, moreover, the plaintiffs’ arguments were actually pretty strong. The plaintiff in Chiles is a therapist who wishes to provide conversion therapy to patients hoping to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] bod[ies].” She says she does not physically abuse LGBTQ patients or prescribe them any medication; she merely engages in talk therapy with them. And it doesn’t take a law degree to see how a law regulating talk therapy implicates the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser.

And so, the Court’s vote in Chiles was lopsided, with Democratic Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joining the majority opinion. Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Despite this lopsided vote, Chiles did raise difficult questions under the First Amendment. While the constitutional right to free speech is broad and typically applies to speech that is offensive or even harmful, the law has historically placed some restrictions on what sort of things licensed professionals may say to their patients or clients. A lawyer who tells a client that it is legal to rob banks risks a malpractice suit or........

© Vox