Supreme Court's pre-enforcement litigation strategy excludes LGBTQ+ voices from conversion therapy cases
Source: Luke Boso, Hila Keren. "Supreme Court keeps ignoring actual LGBTQ+ people in gay rights cases.." April 3, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The authors argue that the Supreme Court made a terrible decision about conversion therapy because they only heard from the therapist who wanted to practice it, not from any LGBTQ+ people who were actually harmed by it. This one-sided approach led the Court to treat harmful therapy as just 'free speech' instead of recognizing the real damage it causes to vulnerable kids.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's decision in Chiles v. Salazar represents a constitutional betrayal because it prioritized therapist free speech rights while ignoring the harm to LGBTQ+ minors by excluding their voices from the litigation process
Premises
- The case was decided in a pre-enforcement posture, meaning no actual victims of conversion therapy were present to testify about harm
- Eight justices (including two liberals) focused solely on the therapist's free speech claims while dismissing evidence of harm to LGBTQ+ youth
- The Alliance Defending Freedom's litigation strategy deliberately excluded affected LGBTQ+ people from the courtroom, replicating their successful approach from 303 Creative v. Elenis
- Both the majority and concurring opinions framed conversion therapy as mere 'speech' rather than acknowledging the coercive therapeutic context involving vulnerable minors
- The Court ignored extensive evidence and testimony about the documented psychological harm caused by conversion therapy, including depression and suicidal ideation
- This decision continues a pattern of Supreme Court hostility toward LGBTQ+ rights in recent cases
Assumptions
- Conversion therapy causes significant psychological harm to minors
- The presence of actual victims in litigation would have changed the Court's perspective
- Free speech protections should not override professional licensing regulations designed to protect vulnerable populations
- The therapeutic relationship involves inherent power imbalances that distinguish it from ordinary speech
- Courts have a constitutional duty to protect minority rights even when politically unpopular