Supreme court rules against Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ in decision rebuked by one justice – US politics live | US news

March 31, 2026:

Supreme court rules against Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ in decision rebuked by one justice – US politics live | US news

Supreme court rules against Colorado ‘conversion therapy’ ban

The supreme court did, however, issue an opinion today, ruling against the state of Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” – a practice that seeks to change minors’ sexual orientation or gender identity.

In an 8-1 decision, the justices reversed a lower court’s decision that had upheld the law in a case brought by psychotherapist Kaley Chiles, who argued that the ban violated her first amendment right to free speech. The law applies to licensed mental health clinicians who seek to change a patient’s gender identity or sexual orientation, discredited tactics that major medical associations have said are ineffective and harmful.

In a lone dissent, Ketanji Brown Jackson – one of the three liberal justices on the bench – issued an opinion rebuking her colleagues’ decision.

“The majority has failed to appreciate the crucial context in which Chiles’s constitutional claims have arisen. Chiles is not speaking in the ether; she is providing therapy to minors as a licensed healthcare professional,” Jackson wrote. “It cannot also be the case that Colorado’s decision to restrict a dangerous therapy modality that, incidentally, involves provider speech is presumptively unconstitutional.”

Colorado is one of more than 20 states in the US that have banned conversion practices. The ruling in favor of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal group, now makes these laws across the country vulnerable to similar challenges.

Share

Key events

A day ahead of blockbuster oral arguments at the supreme court, the line to get a seat has already started forming in Washington DC, according to local journalist Andrew Leyden.

Justices will hear a case challenging one of Donald Trump’s most controversial actions since he returned to the White House – an executive order preventing babies born in the United States from being granted citizenship if their parents are in the US either illegally or temporarily.

Lower courts have ruled Trump’s executive order unconstitutional in legal challenges over the last year, saying that the attempt to gut birthright citizenship violates a key clause of the fourteenth amendment, which guarantees American citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”.

In Trump v Barbara, the challengers also argue that the administration’s efforts run afoul of the citizenship clause, codified after the Civil war, to overturn the supreme court’s Dredd Scott decision. The ruling which stated that enslaved people were not citizens of the US, and therefore were not entitled to protection from the federal government.

Last year, initial attempts to block Trump’s attack on birthright citizenship were limited by the supreme court. In a 6-3 decision the bench ruled that federal judges could not issue universal injunctions that would obstruct executive orders.

On Wednesday, the judges will hear arguments on the merits of the case. The administration argues that the president’s executive order is meant to return to the original meaning of the citizenship clause, which ensured citizenship to formerly enslaved people, instead of “the children of aliens who are temporarily present in the United States”. In a brief to the court, US solicitor general D John Sauer argues that “aliens who are just passing through the United States, and those who cross our borders illegally, lack ties of allegiance and do not obtain the ‘priceless and profound gift’ of citizenship for their children.”

Share

Updated at 

Source link