Supreme Court Ruling Revives Debate Over Conversion Therapy Bans, Including in Virginia

An 8-1 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court has revived a legal fight over conversion therapy bans, siding with a free speech challenge to Colorado’s prohibition on therapists using talk-based conversion therapy with minors.

Though the case has been sent back down to state court for further deliberation, the decision could have implications for several states that have enacted similar bans.

John and Janet Raymond, therapists in Northern Virginia, previously secured a favorable ruling last summer when they challenged Virginia’s own law.

Conversion therapy entails attempts to change or influence a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. As Christians and therapists, the Raymonds argued that Virginia’s ban prevented them from providing therapy and spiritual guidance to clients seeking help on those issues.

“We’re glad free speech is protected,” John Raymond said.

His wife and fellow counselor Janet Raymond added that she is grateful to “be able to talk about things in counseling — that’s why we did it.”

Meanwhile, the American Psychological Association has denounced conversion therapy as a legitimate form of care, citing medical and scientific evidence. The American Medical Association has also condemned the practice. LGBTQ+ advocates say it can be used to discriminate against the community and people’s lifestyles.

The practice can range from inducing nausea and administering electric shocks to having individuals snap an elastic band around their wrist when they become aroused by same-sex erotic images or thoughts.

Talk-based therapy differs from more extreme practices but is aimed at the same goal — discouraging people from embracing their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Raymonds have previously asserted that participation in such counseling is voluntary for their clients.

The Family Foundation, a conservative advocacy organization with a legal arm, represented the Raymonds in their case.

“Counselors have free speech rights, just like any other American,” said Family Foundation President Victoria Cobb. “We were thrilled to be a part of ensuring that for Virginians, and equally thrilled now to see the Supreme Court acknowledge what our courts found.”

From left to right: Family Foundation president Victoria Cobb, Founding Freedoms Law Center lawyer Josh Hetzler, and counselors/plaintiffs John and Janet Raymond celebrate a court ruling to overturn a ban on talk-based conversion therapy. (Photo by Charlotte Rene Woods/Virginia Mercury)

The Colorado case

The ruling favorable to the plaintiff, counselor Kaley Chiles, hinged on whether talk-based conversion therapy qualifies as protected speech. The First Amendment guarantees freedoms of speech and religious expression, among other rights.

“Colorado’s law addressing conversion therapy does not just ban physical interventions. In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the court’s opinion.

Cobb said that she believed Virginia’s own state-level ban would not withstand a First Amendment challenge.

“It is a matter of faith,” she said, emphasizing the religious dimension of free speech. “And it isn’t even a religious freedom issue for a lot of folks, it’s simply ‘we want professional help.’”

In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that “Chiles is not speaking in the ether; she is providing therapy to minors as a licensed healthcare professional.”

Jackson noted how Chiles had challenged Colorado’s ban specifically as it applies to talk-based therapy, rather than contesting other forms of the practice.

“No one directly disputes that Colorado has the power to regulate the medical treatments that state-licensed professionals provide to patients. Nor is it asserted that, when doing so, a State always runs afoul of the Constitution,” she wrote.

“So, in my view, it cannot also be the case that Colorado’s decision to restrict a dangerous therapy modality that, incidentally, involves provider speech is presumptively unconstitutional.”

Virginia dissenters

Opponents of conversion therapy say the practice increases the risk of mental health issues among LGBTQ+ people, including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, and suicide. Studies have indicated such risks.

Sen. Danica Roem, D-Manassas, has advocated for LGBTQ+ minors, drawing in part on her own experiences.

Though she formally transitioned as an adult, she has recalled attending Catholic school as a child, where she faced efforts to dissuade her from embracing her identity.

“I spent 13 years in Catholic school — I heard everything,” she said. “I am just as trans today at age 40 as I was when I got into Catholic school in 4th grade,” she said last summer.

Reflecting on the recent Supreme Court ruling, she added that lived experiences— and listening to those who have them — matter.

“When no members (of SCOTUS) have sat in a room and had adults try to shame them for being someone else, then they’re left thinking ‘talk therapy’ is just a friendly little conversation instead of psychologically abusing kids with a practice that major medical associations and state boards have repeatedly dismissed,” she said.

Though debate over the psychological impacts of the practice continues, the ruling signals that talk-based conversion therapy may be protected under the First Amendment for now.

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com.