Supreme Court's conversion therapy ruling creates dangerous constitutional double standard
Source: Mark Joseph Stern. "How in the world was the Supreme Court’s awful conversion therapy ruling 8–1?." March 31, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author argues the Supreme Court made a hypocritical decision by protecting anti-LGBTQ+ therapists' speech rights while denying the same protections to other doctors. This creates an unfair double standard that will hurt LGBTQ+ kids and make it harder for states to regulate dangerous medical practices.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's 8-1 decision in Chiles v. Salazar is hypocritical and dangerous because it grants First Amendment protections to anti-LGBTQ+ therapists while denying similar protections to other medical professionals, creating an inconsistent constitutional framework that will harm LGBTQ+ youth and undermine medical regulation broadly
Premises
- The Court granted First Amendment protections to conversion therapy practitioners while previously denying such protections to abortion providers and trans-affirming doctors
- The majority opinion treats anti-LGBTQ+ speech as deserving special constitutional protection compared to other medical viewpoints that states routinely regulate
- States can already prohibit doctors from encouraging harmful behaviors (smoking, anorexia, suicide) without First Amendment challenges, showing the inconsistency of this ruling
- The decision undermines states' established authority to regulate medical practice through professional licensing rules, as recognized in Planned Parenthood v. Casey
- Conversion therapy has been rejected by every major American medical association as ineffective and harmful, with survivors reporting increased suicide risk
- The ruling will have 'disastrous implications' for medical regulation generally by making all speech-based medical rules vulnerable to First Amendment attack
Assumptions
- Medical professional speech should be regulable as part of broader medical practice oversight
- Constitutional principles should be applied consistently across similar cases
- States have legitimate authority to protect minors from harmful medical practices
- The Supreme Court's previous precedents in Casey should guide medical speech regulation
- Scientific consensus from medical associations should inform legal policy on medical practices