Supreme Court to hear Colorado conversion‑therapy case
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Colorado’s ban on so‑called conversion therapy for minors, framing the case as a free‑speech clash over whether the law impermissibly regulates professional speech. Analysis of the justices’ questioning and expert commentary (notably Amy Howe via PBS) suggests competing doctrinal lines could determine the outcome, with broad implications for similar bans in 23 states and the District of Columbia.
Legal
Health
Politics
📌 Key Facts
- Oral arguments were held in the Supreme Court case challenging Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy, and reporters analyzed justices’ questioning during those arguments.
- PBS NewsHour published an analytic read of the justices’ questioning, identifying likely doctrinal lines the Court appeared to be considering.
- Experts cited by PBS, including Amy Howe, interpreted the justices’ questions as potentially shaping the Court’s ultimate ruling and its legal framing of the dispute.
- A central issue signaled in questioning and analysis was whether Colorado’s law should be treated as a regulation of professional conduct/statute or as a regulation of speech under the First Amendment—an allocation that could determine the case’s outcome.
- The case carries immediate nationwide policy stakes because conversion‑therapy bans are already in place in 23 states plus the District of Columbia.
📰 Sources (2)
What Supreme Court justices signaled in arguments over Colorado’s conversion therapy ban
New information:
- Analytic read of justices' questioning and likely doctrinal lines signaled during oral arguments (as reported by PBS NewsHour)
- Expert commentary (Amy Howe via PBS) interpreting how the Court’s questioning could shape the ultimate ruling and its statutory/speech‑regulation framing
- Contextual restatement of scope: conversion‑therapy bans exist in 23 states plus the District of Columbia (emphasized as the immediate nationwide policy stakes)