SCOTUS Not Cool With Colorado Ban on Conversion Therapy

You're not alone if it feels like groundhog day every morning when you read the news

“or even listen to what we're talking about here on Strix scrutiny.”

And while it's overwhelming, seeing the trajectory our country is on, we all show up every day, trying to find ways to make it better, to educate our neighbors and to fight for a democracy. Our friends at Americans United have been doing the same thing day in and day out for almost 80 years. This year alone, they filed three separate lawsuits against Trump's anti-Christian bias task force, which spoiler alert is anything but unbiased.

AU has been tracking every mention of Christian nationalist rhetoric from this administration, and partnering with many allied organizations to sue and protect our constitutional

right of church state separation. The right that protects all of our abilities to be who we are

and live as we choose, so long as we don't harm others. It's easy to get apathetic, as we're all seeing and hearing these attacks on our freedoms every single day and watching a religion be weaponized

“for a power grab. Now isn't the time to give up, though. Now's the time to fight back,”

against the growing authoritarianism in our country. Consider joining Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Learn more by visiting AU.org/Cricket because church-state separation protects us all. The check-out with the worldwide best-known conversation. The legendary check-out from Shopify is just the shop of their website,

a bit to social media, and over-edits, for sure. That's the music for your oron. Videos are also based on vendors, with Shopify, it can be helpful to a real help. Start your test today for one of your promotions at shopify.de/record.

“Ladies like this, they're going to have the last word.”

She's both not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity, she said, "I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet or for my next." Welcome back to strict scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. I am your regular host for today's emergency episode,

Leo Littman. Happy Trans Day of Visibility Everyone. The Supreme Court just declared that it is viewpoint discrimination, to affirm transgender individuals' existence and not deny an individual's gender identity. Yes, we got the Supreme Court's opinion and trials versus Salazar, the case challenging Colorado's ban on conversion therapy. And here to discuss this case with me is Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center

for LGBTQ rights. Shannon, thanks so much for joining and welcome to strict scrutiny. Thanks, Leo. A quick preview of what we're going to try to cover in this short episode. The Court held that the Colorado law has applied to the particular mental health professional in the case that's professional in air quotes, triggered strict scrutiny, the most demanding form of review, and therefore the law needs to be evaluated by the

lower courts according to that standard. The decision is 81 written by Neil Gorsuch, hero of the LGBT community himself. Justice Jackson was a loan to center, Justice Kagan wrote a concurrence together with Justice Sotomayor to explain her view. We'll talk about that, don't worry, but more generally we're going to explain what the court did say and what they didn't say and why it's still concerning. And in my view reflects a real

anti-trans bent. Okay, Shannon first up, just basics. What is the Colorado law that was

at issue in this case? It's just a very straightforward law that says that state, licensed mental health providers cannot subject a minor patient to therapeutic interventions that are attempting to change the minor sexual orientation or gender identity. That's it. Yeah, that is a straight up ban and as you say, it's part of a licensing regime for medical professionals. So it's not even like this law is going to haul people off to jail. So what was

the specific challenge that the plaint have brought to this law? It's based on a very crude and yet it's a crude version of the first member that the Supreme Court, just endorsed state to one, is that because what she is doing or wishes to do consists of so-called talk therapy that any regulation of the treatment that she can provide is a regulation of speech and that in her view there's something about this law that is less than even handed that says it's okay to support a young

person for being gay and transgender, but that you can't try to dissuade them from being gay or transgender.

just endorsed and the, yeah, this is talk therapy, that speech, you're restricting speech.

“Therefore, we're going to apply strict scrutiny. We are going to complicate that in a bit, but first,”

I just want to carve out that this was what's known as an as-applied challenge. That is the plaintiff was only challenging certain applications or certain uses of the law and maintained and the court accepted that she was not challenging portions of the law that banned so-called of ulcer therapies like physical interventions or medications. She was challenging her allegations to the extent the law permits her to speak in ways that encourage or affirm an individual's

gender identity or sexual orientation, but doesn't allow her to encourage an individual to deny their gender identity or sexual orientation. That was kind of her theory of what was on constitutional

about the law. Okay, so Shannon, you mentioned the court's version, crude version of the first

amendment. So let's walk through what the court held and the primary holding in the case is about

“the appropriate standard of review. So could you just tell us what the court decided there?”

Yeah, so the court said that insofar as this law restricts Kayleigh Child's ability to engage in so-called top therapy that's trying to dissuade a young person from being gay or transgender that that is viewpoint discrimination and just under boilerplate for some amendment doctrine, therefore triggers strict scrutiny. I mean, they didn't strike the law down. They are getting Colorado a chance to go back and see if they can meet that standard. Exactly. So what the court

held is, the law's subject to strict scrutiny. Now of course, strict scrutiny is the most demanding standard of review. It remains for the lower courts to apply that standard and I think it's fair to say the majority opinion kind of strongly suggests that they think it's unconstitutional, but, you know, formally that has yet to be decided. Okay, so let's walk through why the majority said this law triggers strict scrutiny. Could you kind of introduce us to some of the reasoning

such as it is? Yes, I mean, it's very frustrating. I must say, you know, someone very involved in helping to draft these laws and believe me, we went to great links to ensure that they are not that they are even handed, but the court seized on certain language in this statute and took it out of context and read it as suggesting that the law is saying that it is okay to support or affirm although the word of firm appears nowhere in the statute does not appear in the statute. This is what

we call court legalism, Shannon. This is textualism prime, textualism 2.0. The words they aren't there, but we're just going to say they're there. Yeah, very intuitive textualism. Exactly. So, yeah, the court says, well, we're reading this statute to say that you can support a firm, sort of endorse a young person for being gay or transgender, but you cannot do the opposite, and therefore the one, the affirming viewpoint over the anti-affirming viewpoint,

you know, all of which betrays a complete misunderstanding of therapy, a disregard for the words in this statute, but there you have it. Okay, so let's just kind of unpack those steps and as you

were alluding to, the first step is the court's conclusion that this law regulates speech or

in the court's words, you know, the spoken word, the quintessential form of protected speech. And from there, the court then goes on to say the law represents something known as content discrimination and also viewpoint discrimination, both of which are disfavored when a law regulates speech. So, as to content discrimination, the court said, Colorado seeks to regulate what mischiles, you know, the therapist says, and similarly on viewpoint discrimination, as you say,

the court says the law allows the therapist to express acceptance, support of gender identity and sexual orientation, but doesn't allow her to express support for someone denying their gender identity or sexual orientation. Okay, so you mentioned these steps have a lot of problems, so which step do you want to start at Shannon? Well, good lord. Okay, yeah, we're to begin.

“I mean, I think there's some strategic ambiguity in this decision about whether the majority of”

opinion is squarely based on a content discrimination theory or viewpoint discrimination, the majority of opinion talks about content discrimination, but then there's a concurring opinion by Justice Cagan joined by Justice Sotomayor that suggests that no, that the real problem is

potentially been rewriting these statutes in a way that might not trigger strict scrutiny. So that was interesting. But look, the language that the court is reading about that it's okay to engage in treatment that is about supporting a young person identity development, there's nothing at all on the face of the statute that says that that wouldn't apply equally to a young person who's saying, you know, I have real conflicts about being gay or transgender. That really conflicts with my

religious beliefs. There is nothing in this statute that prohibits that therapists from working with such a young person, as long as the therapist is not trying to impose a predetermined outcome

“or identity on that young person. I mean, that's why, you know, it just so happens, the bitter irony here”

is Dr. Julia Seduzki, who is one of the leading therapists in the country who she herself is a very conservative Catholic therapist. She has pioneered a way of working with LGBT young people from conservative religious families that does not seek to impose a predetermined outcome on them. There is not conversion in the therapy. She filing a incredibly powerful

anarchist brief with the court that explained why conversion therapy is never legitimate therapy

just under basic principles about therapeutic neutrality about why it's harmful to families and children in conservative religious families about how there are alternative treatment modalities that are competent, ethical, don't seek to impose predetermined outcomes, none of which, I don't know if the court even read or amicus brief, but none of this, like, important. I don't even want to call it nuance. I mean, it's not even nuance. This is just like the

basic contours of the professional background about what constitutes legitimate therapy, incompetent therapy, and the viewpoint neutrality that wasn't, you know, we tried to make that into the text of the statue, but that all fell on deaf ears with the current court. Not reading amicus briefs or statutes is the new texturalism. Strix scrutiny is brought to you by Smalls. We've talked on the show about how the girls are fighting

and the boys are fighting. In other words, there's a lot of cat fighting, meow, and in order to bring their best kitty girl to these fights, your cat needs smalls. Smalls fresh cat food is protein pack recipes made with preservative free 100% human-grade ingredients you find in your fridge,

“and deliver it right to your door. That's why cats.com named Smalls, their best overall cat food”

is protein pack, so they can pump up for the cat fights. And for a limited time, get 60% off

your first order plus free shipping when you head to smalls.com/strix. Starting with Smalls so easy,

even a Supreme Court just just could do it. You just share info about your cat's diet, health, and food preferences. Then Smalls puts together a personalized meal plan for your cat. No more picking between random brands at the store. Smalls has the right food to satisfy any cat's cravings, because kitty girl, it's your world. Still not a believer in Smalls, Forbes ranks Smalls the best overall cat food, while BuzzFeed said, "My cats went completely

ballistic for this stuff." After switching to Smalls, 88% of cat owners reported overall health improvements. That's a big deal, and the team at Smalls is so confident your cat will love their

“product that you can try it risk-free. That means they will refund you if your cat won't eat their”

food. So stop guessing which meals will upset their stomach for a limited time, because you are a

strict scrutiny listener, gets 60% off your first order plus free shipping. When you head to smalls.com/strix.

While last time, that's 60% off your first order plus free shipping, when you head to smalls.com/strix. Strix scrutiny is brought to you by One skin. We've talked before about why One skin really stands out as a skincare company. Not hype or just fancy packaging, it's the real science. The founding team are longevity researchers who asked a deceptively simple question. If many visible signs of aging like wrinkles, fine lines and loss of elasticity are driven by so-called zombie cells,

what if you could actually reduce those cells to slow the aging process down instead of just covering it up. That research led to OS1. One skin's proprietary peptide. It's a first ingredient proven to switch off those damaged senacense cells, actually slowing skin aging directly at the source. This is the stuff Samolito wishes he would've used. This is serious science that fits easily into my existing routine. And every time I use One skin, I'm giving my skin a clear signal to

repair damage cells, support collagen and strengthen my skin barrier. One of the reasons One skin caught my attention is that it's founded by a team of women and PhD scientists. Plus, the OS1 face moisturizer doesn't feel thick, just rejuvenating. And I feel an extra snap after just a few

isn't just my experience. One skin's products are backed by extensive lab and clinical data,

“including four peer-reviewed clinical studies to validate their efficacy and safety on all skin types.”

Plus, they've got over 10,000 five-star reviews, and have been recently featured by Bloomberg, and as a leader in skin longevity. It really shows you don't need a complicated routine to achieve healthier, younger-looking skin. Born from over a decade of longevity research, one skin's OS1 peptide is proven to target the visible signs of aging, helping you unlock your healthiest skin now. And as you age, for a limited time, try one skin with 15% off using code strict at one skin.co/strict.

That's 15% off, one skin.co with code strict. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we send you. Stricts scrutiny is brought to you by fast-growing trees. Did you know fast-growing trees as America's largest and most trusted online

nursery with thousands of trees and plants and over 2 million happy customers? They have all the

“plants your yard or home needs, including fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs,”

and houseplants. And they're all grown with care and guaranteed to arrive healthy. It's like your local nursery, but anywhere you live. With more plants, then you'll find anywhere else. Whatever you're looking for, fast-growing trees helps you find options that actually work for your climate, space, and lifestyle. Fast-growing trees makes it super easy to get your dream yard, just click order, grow, and get healthy, thriving plants delivered right to your door.

They're alive and thrive, guaranteed, promises that your plants arrive happy and healthy. No green thumb required, just quality plants you can count on. Plus, you can get ongoing support from their trained plant experts who can help you plant your landscape, choose the right plants, and learn how to care for them every step of the way. Okay, I've talked about

“poron the show. How we had to rip up our entire backyard when we moved to Michigan. And then,”

even worse, we had to figure out what would actually go in there. And fast-growing trees was so helpful in giving us options. When we just enter in information about the extent of the shade, the kind of shade, what else was in the yard? Oh, and I could also tell them I needed something super basic that required a very basic level of care. Plus, I knew if things went wrong, their experts would be there to guarantee the plants and support our needs.

Spring is sprung, even here in the Midwest, and that means now is the best time to plant. Fast-growing trees can help anyone get their home and yard, ready with spring planting essentials, and trees, and plants, and guaranteed to thrive. Right now, they have great deals on spring planting essentials. Up to half-off on select plants, and listeners to our show get 20% off their

first purchase when using the code strict at checkout. That's an additional 20% off better plants

and better growing at fast-growingtrees.com using the code strict at checkout. Fast-growingtrees.com, code strict. Now's the perfect time to plant. Let's grow together. You strict to save today. Offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. So, I kind of want to focus on two parts of the reasoning, and then we'll go on to potentially redrafting the statutes and the implications of the decision, but just at the threshold step about whether this law

regulates speech. It seems to me that that conclusion is totally divorced from context because Colorado has not required every person in Colorado to go around affirming an individual sexual orientation or gender identity. Instead, it has restricted what a medical professional does in a treatment setting. And in that context, you're not just regulating what someone says for the sake of saying it. You are regulating their provision of health care. So, ignoring that

context is kind of where they start going wrong. And obviously, I understand that states can't

simply recharacterize laws as regulating conduct or that in order to avoid the first amendment,

but that's just not what this statute does. The question I wanted to ask you about, though, is on viewpoint discrimination, because this is where Justice Kagan joined with Justice So, to my or indicated, they agreed with the majority. So, Justice Kagan wrote a concurrence saying the reason why I agree strictly scrutiny applies is because this law represents viewpoint discrimination. And she posits a hypothetical law that instead of barring talk therapy designed to

change an individual a minor sexual orientation or gender identity. The law bars therapy affirming those things. And she says, because that would be not permitted. And that's a viewpoint discrimination.

Yeah, it's sad because, you know, this is just a gay kid. I know.

Justice Kagan. I know. I know. It just, I know. It just represents such a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. There, again, the word of firm does not appear in the statute. The law is not about

“do you affirm a kid being gay or transgender or do you disaffirm a kid being gay or transgender?”

It is about cannot therapist bring their own agenda to therapy and try to direct the outcome, like have the goal of therapy be to impose a particular sexual orientation or gender identity on a kid. It's just, there is apples and oranges. I mean, she is analyzing a law that is different than certainly the intention behind the Colorado law. And I think different than the actual words

of the statute. Yeah. And I also think this move of saying, well, what's good for the goose

is good for the gander, just kind of ignores the political and legal landscape that we are living in. You know, that move doesn't really work, but that's a separate thing. Okay. So I do want to shift to the implications of this decision. What happens next? So what does this mean for LGBT individuals, LGBT families in Colorado or people living in, I think, the 25 other states that also have conversion therapy bands? Yeah, you know, it's not great. I mean, as you noted,

it's strict scrutiny is usually fatal. Now I will say, I don't, I don't, I don't have four clothes entirely the possibility that Colorado might be able to prevail back in the district court. Just given that the evidence is so strong that, I mean, like more than two, nearly two thirds. It's like nearly two thirds of kids who are put into conversion therapy actually attempt suicide, not just have suicidal ideation. And so there's zero evidence that this therapy provides any

benefit. Two thirds of kids who undergo it attempt suicide. If this was any other type of medical or mental health treatment where that was the case, there would be no greater than of course the state to ban it. So they may actually prevail back in the district court. I don't think we should rule that out, but in the meantime, you know, all of this, I just want to underscore that like those findings and those effects are not limited to the physical interventions of conversion therapy,

you know, studies have found that there are also those negative effects, you know, increased oppressions, suicidal ideations, and whatnot, you know, with the talk therapy components as well. Oh gosh. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, this whole distinction between talk therapy and other forms is so maddened because like the overwhelming, overwhelmingly conversion therapy consists of talk therapy in this day and age. So to say that well, this only applies to talk therapy is kind of meaningless.

“It's as much as to say, you know, that's what conversion therapy is now more or less. So it's”

that's just that distinction. It's also kind of a therapy to 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, you know, does to people. And, you know, just as

Gorsuch basically says, well, there's some possibility that you could sue someone if you receive

bad medical advice or legal advice in your harmed, but, you know, at that point, you know, cats out of the damage is done already, but the damage is done. Exactly. Exactly. I mean, look, that is very important. I want to make sure we got that in. I mean, the court, thank goodness, has a paragraph. And they're saying these free speech concerns do not apply to malpractice claims. That is very significant. We've got a bunch of states taking action now to extend the statute

limitations for bringing those claims that really does matter. But as you point out, yeah, look, the talking in a mental health situation is the treatment. It's not expressive that the therapist is not expressing his or her own views about something. It is a treatment modality. I mean, justice, Jackson nailed that so beautifully in her descent. It is a formal treatment. And not that different than a doctor looking at an X-ray and verbally reading your X-ray results to you. I mean,

yeah, again, not to, you know, beat this to death, but the analysis is so crude. Yes. It's so crude. Yeah. Um, so I do want to explicitly ask you the question that we've kind of referred to a few times, which is, could states like Colorado rewrite these laws to restrict these harmful practices

“in a way that wouldn't trigger strict scrutiny? I think they could. I mean, I do think justice”

Kagan's concurring opinion does suggest that if you can do this in a way that is very expressly clearly unmistakably, viewpoint neutral, that the court, at least she and Justice Sotomayor, would have a different view of the standard to be applied. Yeah. So I think, yeah, I think they

theory is that some other laws would be content restrictions, but not viewpoint restrictions,

“and that maybe content restrictions were acceptable in this situation. You know, my concern is,”

well, even if Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor believe these are content restrictions, you know, would the Republican appointees say the same to form a majority and in particular, you know, if you have a law that says mental health professionals can't provide treatment that falls below, professional standards of care or cause harm, you know, that law is going to do the same things that this Colorado law does, and I don't know what the Republican appointees would say

as far as whether that is permissible. Yeah. They really sidestep that whole question. In this, in this, in this opinion, I do think it's strategic ambiguity. I don't know how that will come out, but as Justice Jackson points out, there's all kinds of regulations of mental health treatment that are content based. We're listening to this decision on what is safe and what works. Okay, so we've alluded to the Justice Jackson descent. You know, I want you mentioned,

you know, how excellent it is. It is superb. What strongly recommend reading it. You know, there was one passage that alluded to the implications this case could have, you know, beyond laws like Colorado's and the LGBT community, because as Justice Jackson notes, you know, before now, licensed medical professionals had to adhere to standards when treating patients. Today, the court turns it back on that tradition and to be completely frank, no one knows what will

happen now. You know, can a state ban psychologists from counseling their clients to commit suicide,

“can a state ban mental health professionals for validating clients choice to have an abortion?”

Can you prohibit someone from telling a patient with an eating disorder? You're beautiful, but not yes, you're fat or telling them COVID and 19 vaccines cause you to be gay or an Ivermectin works well as treatment and, you know, the Calvin ball aspects of this, which is what I want to turn to next or underscore by for people not familiar with another holding of the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood versus KC. You know, in that case, the court appelled

portions of a law that required doctors to inform patients about options other than abortion. You know, to counsel their patients in a particular direction that's obviously viewpoint discrimination and law reports have sustained heartbeat laws that provide full-semiss leading information to patients. You know, horrifying scripts that suggest, you know, abortion will

“cause suicide when that's false and courts have appelled that. And so I'm just concerned about”

this asymmetry, you know, and courts ability to say, well, that's permissible licensing, regulation of professional speech. This is impermecible viewpoint discrimination. And so, you know,

Shannon, I kind of previewed my views up top and I will go on that rant in a second. But I did

want to invite you to kind of situate this case in the context of so many of the courts, other cases that really seem to take aim at the LGBT community generally and transgender people specifically. And really it's concerning, yes, you know, I mean, it's particularly painful that this decision comes on the heels of the Scrametti decision with the court went out. And what happens way to reaffirm that regulating medical practice is an area of traditional state authority that

states have tremendous latitude to do that, where there's any uncertainty, where the court says, this can't be sex discrimination that triggers heightened scrutiny because it's regulating medical treatment. Right? Same move. Colorado is trying to make here. Anyway, sorry. And, Casey, yes, where the court said, hey, it's fine to regulate speech if it's part of medical treatment. Like, why does that principle not apply here? It's really baffling. And I, you know,

it's, again, I'm really so disappointed that Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor went along with such a, I mean, it's incredibly crude. They literally holding that that Casey principle only applies when there's some physical treatment involved, which is, I don't know, Dr. Ily seems non-sensical to me. But, you know, we have an eight-one decision now. So, you know, here we are. Yeah. And in addition to Scrametti, you know, I wanted to remind listeners of last term

decision in muck mood versus Taylor, where the court said parents have a first amendment right

to opt their children out of education that includes reading story books with LGBT characters because those books present an objective threat, you know, to the parents religion. You know, we are reading on the Supreme Court's decisions in little versus hecox and West Virginia versus B.P.J. about whether states can ban transathletes from participating in sports. We are less than a month away from the court's decision in mirabali versus Bonta, where the court said parents

that one, it feels like in some ways they are legalizing child abuse of trans kids. And the broader

“cultural context for this is, you have statements from judges, you know, just this last week,”

Judge Matthew Kasmiric, you know, in the published remarks in which he suggests recognizing LGBT individuals is contrary to the truth as declared in Genesis. And this decision, you know, in child's comes on Samelito's birthday Eve and it's just so much awfulness and hate directed at the LGBT community and very just demoralizing. And, you know, with that kind of in mind,

“I did want to close the episode on a more positive and affirming note, you know,”

to our transgender listeners, you know, to people with transgender children. We love you here. Sam goes for our gay lesbian bisexual listeners and listeners with family or loved ones who are

gay lesbian or bisexual. Go listen to some Kim Petrus, her music, amazing. Go listen to Moona,

what I want, great song, support the Trevor project, if you can, you know, who provides wonderful resources to LGBT individuals, particularly LGBT minors. Shannon, I will leave you with the final words since you are the expert. Thanks so much, Leah. I mean, thanks for covering this. And yes, I just want to speak directly to parents of LGBT young people in sight. Please do not think that the Supreme Court just said that these practices are safe or effective or appropriate.

They did not. They're very harmful. They will do nothing but harm your children and drive a wedge between you and your children at a time when your kids need you the most. Yes. Thank you so much, Shannon, mentor for sharing your expertise and your time with us. Today and thanks everyone for listening. Strix scrutiny is a crooked media production hosted and executive produce by me,

Leo Whitman, Melissa Murray, and Kate Shaw. Our senior producer and editor is Melody Raoul. Michael Goldsmith is our producer. Jordan Thomas is our intern. Our music is by Eddie Cooper. We get production support from Katie Long and Adrian Hill. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. And thanks to our video team, Ben Hethcode and Johanna Case. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the writer's guild of America East. If you haven't already, be sure to subscribe to

Strix scrutiny in your favorite podcast app and on YouTube at StrixGrootney.com. So you never miss an

“episode. And if you want to help other people find the show, please rate and review us. It really helps.”

[Music]