The Supreme Court Continues to Overlook Real LGBTQ+ Individuals in Gay Rights Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Chiles v. Salazar has raised alarms among LGBTQ+ advocates. By prioritizing a therapist's First Amendment rights over the protection of minors from harmful conversion

The Supreme Court's ruling in Chiles v. Salazar has raised significant concerns among advocates for LGBTQ+ youth, particularly those who have been subjected to conversion therapy. The decision, which was made by a court with eight justices—six conservatives and two liberals—centered primarily on the rights of the therapist involved in the case, rather than considering the potential harm to the minors who might be affected by her practices.

Focus on Therapist Over Minors

The case involved a therapist who holds the belief that minors should avoid identifying or behaving as LGBTQ+. She argued that, as a professional, she should be allowed to guide young people according to this perspective. The Court's attention was focused on protecting her First Amendment rights, which left the voices of the affected minors out of the conversation. Notably, no individuals who had experienced conversion therapy were present to testify about the harmful effects of the practice.

The case was heard in a pre-enforcement posture, meaning that Colorado had not yet enforced its ban on conversion therapy in a specific dispute involving real patients. The legal proceedings primarily focused on the therapist and the State of Colorado, which had enacted a law prohibiting conversion therapy for minors.

Legal Precedent and Strategy

The approach used by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) in this case was similar to their previous strategy in 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023), where conservative justices sided with a web designer who opposed anti-discrimination laws. In the Chiles case, this strategy succeeded in convincing even two liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, to side with the therapist’s arguments, focusing on her right to free speech over the potential harm to minors.

Concerns Raised by Dissenting Opinions

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, expressing concerns about the lack of attention given to the potential impact on the adolescents who could be exposed to the therapist's views. Both the majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Justice Kagan's concurrence, emphasized the therapist’s freedom of speech while downplaying the risks posed to vulnerable young clients. The majority accepted the therapist’s argument that she merely “speaks” and does not force her beliefs on others, yet no critical examination was given to the coercive context in which minors might attend therapy, especially under pressure from caregivers.

Throughout the case, the Court rejected Colorado's argument that its law was designed to protect minors from licensed providers who impose personal beliefs on young people. Instead, the Court's decision continued to prioritize the therapist's rights over the protection of vulnerable individuals.

Implications for LGBTQ+ Youth

The ruling fails to consider the well-documented harms caused by conversion therapy, including social isolation, heightened depression, and suicidal ideation. This was evident from the experiences of individuals like Mathew Shurka, who survived conversion therapy and later became an outspoken critic of the practice. By framing therapeutic speech as protected expression without taking into account the coercive nature of the therapy, the Court effectively sidelined the welfare and rights of LGBTQ+ minors.

This decision is part of a broader pattern of rulings that critics argue are increasingly hostile to queer communities. Cases like U.S. v. Skrmetti, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and Mirabelli v. Bonta further contribute to concerns that the legal system is not adequately safeguarding the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. Critics assert that reducing the regulation of conversion therapy to a free speech issue ignores the constitutional obligation to protect vulnerable populations from harm.

Conclusion

In Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court's decision to prioritize the claims of a therapist over the experiences of LGBTQ+ youth has sparked concern. The absence of individuals directly impacted by conversion therapy in the proceedings, combined with a pre-enforcement legal strategy and an overemphasis on free speech, highlights the ongoing challenges in protecting minors from harmful practices. This case underscores the legal tension between religious freedom, professional speech, and the rights of vulnerable individuals.

Sources:

• The Supreme Court Continues to Overlook Real LGBTQ+ Individuals in Gay Rights Cases
• Supreme Court's Chiles v. Salazar ruling raises concerns about conversion therapy
• Legal Experts React to Supreme Court's Gay Rights Decisions in 2026
• The Supreme Court Keeps Ignoring Actual LGBTQ+ People in Its Gay Rights Cases