The Supreme Court has declined to take up a case challenging Washington state’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy,” which prohibits therapists from advising minors with gender dysphoria to identify with their biological sex.
The law, enacted in 2018, restricts licensed professionals from suggesting changes in sexual orientation to children who identify as gay or lesbian. It also prohibits health professionals from telling a child who identifies as transgender that they are, in fact, their biological sex.
Similar laws have been enacted in other liberal states across the country. Michigan, which recently placed the same restriction on health professionals, gained attention because of the connotation behind the term “conversion therapy.” But the state defined such a practice as “Any practice or treatment by a mental health professional that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behavior or gender expression or to reduce or eliminate sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward an individual of the same gender.” By including the term “gender identity” in this definition, health professionals in the state are required to affirm a child who identifies as the opposite sex.
The case against Washington was brought forward by Brian Tingley, a licensed family counselor who has practiced in the state for over two decades. Tingley argued that the law violates the First Amendment by dictating what he can and cannot discuss with his patients.
“The law clearly violates the First Amendment by censoring counselors like Brian, and that ultimately hurts his clients,” a member of Tingley’s legal team argued.
Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, the dissenting justices expressed a willingness to hear the case, emphasizing the constitutional implications surrounding freedom of speech and expression in the context of therapy for gender dysphoria. Justice Thomas noted that there is currently a “fierce public debate” over how the country should help minors with gender dysphoria. He further argued that the state has routinely silenced one side of the debate.
“Under SB 5722, licensed counselors cannot voice anything other than the state-approved opinion on minors with gender dysphoria without facing punishment,” Thomas wrote in his dissent.
Justice Alito concurred, stating that the case raised a question of national importance regarding the First Amendment.
