In an unexpected move, the Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will not hear a lawsuit challenging Washington state’s restrictions on an anti-LGBTQ practice known as “conversion therapy” — meaning that the restrictions will remain in place.
Conversion therapy is a discredited method of counseling that attempts to turn LGBTQ patients into cisgender heterosexuals — or, at least, to prevent them from expressing their actual sexual orientation or gender identity. As a federal appeals court that upheld the restrictions explained in its opinion, “every major medical, psychiatric, psychological, and professional mental health organization opposes the use of conversion therapy.”
Because the justices decided not to hear this case, known as Tingley v. Ferguson, and because the appeals court upheld Washington’s law, the state’s limited ban on conversion therapy remains in effect for now.
Still, it is likely that the Supreme Court will agree to hear a lawsuit challenging a conversion therapy ban in the future.
The Court’s decision not to hear this case is surprising for several reasons. As Justice Clarence Thomas points out in a dissenting opinion, lower federal appeals courts are divided on whether conversion therapy is protected by the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court is especially likely to hear cases that split the federal appellate bench.
The Court’s GOP-appointed majority, moreover, has been extraordinarily solicitous toward claims made by the Christian right. And it just held last June that the free speech rights of anti-LGBTQ business owners can trump the right of their LGBTQ customers to be free from discrimination. So the Tingley case fits within one of the Roberts Court’s broader ideological projects.
And on top of all that, the plaintiff challenging Washington’s conversion therapy law has a plausible case. While states normally have broad leeway to sanction malpractice by licensed health care providers, including mental…
Read the full article here
