“Talk therapy matters, right? It affects people. And I know that from personal experience, I also know that from observing the Supreme Court and seeing what the absence of therapy does to people.”
Leah Litman
1:20The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in *Childs v. Salazar* that Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors constitutes viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment, triggering strict scrutiny — the standard most likely to strike down a law. The majority, written by Gorsuch and joined by all but Justice Jackson, accepted the crude argument that talk therapy is protected speech, ignoring that the law regulates a licensed medical treatment, not personal expression. The ruling immediately clouds conversion therapy bans in 25 states and opens a constitutional door that could let practitioners subject LGBTQ minors to a practice where nearly two-thirds of recipients attempt suicide. Legal Director Shannon Minter explains why the ruling is doctrinally incoherent, what states can do to rewrite their bans to survive review, and why the decision fits a disturbing pattern of the current Court systematically targeting LGBTQ rights.
Leah Litman welcomes listeners and guest Shannon Minter to discuss the Supreme Court's 8-1 decision in *Childs v. Salazar*, challenging Colorado's conversion therapy ban, on Trans Day of Visibility.
“The decision is 8-1, written by Neil Gorsuch, hero of the LGBT community himself.”
This quote uses heavy sarcasm to criticize Justice Gorsuch's role in a decision that, despite being 8-1, is viewed critically by LGBTQ+ advocates.
“This decision is still concerning and, in my view, reflects a real anti-trans bent.”
This quote directly criticizes the Supreme Court's ruling, asserting that it harbors a bias against transgender individuals, making it highly provocative.
“The Supreme Court just declared that it is viewpoint discrimination to affirm transgender individuals' existence and not deny an individual's gender identity.”
This statement highlights a controversial legal interpretation by the Supreme Court that suggests affirming transgender identity could be considered viewpoint discrimination.