WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Chiles v. Salazar, a case in which the Supreme Court is considering whether Colorado can prohibit mental health professionals from practicing “conversion therapy” on children, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Ana Builes issued the following reaction:

Based on the overwhelming scientific and professional consensus that trying to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity can cause them serious harm, Colorado joined twenty-three other states and the District of Columbia in prohibiting licensed mental health professionals from practicing conversion therapy on youths.

As our brief explains, Colorado’s law on conversion therapy targets precisely the type of treatment by professionals that states have a strong interest in, and long history of, regulating. The First Amendment does not prohibit states from protecting its residents through this sort of regulation simply because the medical treatment that mental health professionals provide is done through speech.

CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes added this reaction:

Medical treatment by professionals licensed by the state does not cease being medical treatment simply because it is accomplished through speech with patients.  The Court has long acknowledged states’ power to shield their residents from ineffectual or harmful practices by state-licensed professionals.  States have relied upon this power to protect their residents, and residents in turn have relied upon this protection when they entrust themselves to the care of state-licensed professionals.  The First Amendment does not require the Court to undermine states’ power to protect their residents in this way, and it should not do so in this case.