In the recent decision Chiles v. Salazar, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state laws banning conversion therapy may be unconstitutional if those laws restrict free speech.
The term “conversion therapy” is largely a misnomer. Some scholars have more accurately characterized such things as “conversion practices.” Fundamentally, conversion practices seek to delegitimize LGBTQ+ identity. Whether by 20th-century aversion techniques that were once widely employed (including electroshock treatments), religious rituals (including so-called “deliverance prayers” or exorcisms), or talk therapy, conversion practices all scream to LGBTQ+ youth: “You are not OK.”
Schools are not mentioned in the court’s opinion, but we should all be concerned about LGBTQ+ students who are subjected to these practices. Such concerns for students are heightened as the Chiles decision elevates the protection of religiously motivated speech above protection against the devastating impact of conversion practices on LGBTQ+ youth.
In the past several years, at least 15 states have sought to embed chaplains in public schools. Are chaplains who affirm conversion practices now allowed to work with their public school students to erase their LGBTQ+ identities?
Religion is central to the decision, even as it is masked by First Amendment free speech concerns. In broad strokes, the case involved therapist Kaley Chiles—licensed by the state of Colorado and described by her legal representatives as a “committed Christian”—who argued that her free speech rights were violated by a law that banned conversion therapy for minors. The court’s opinion characterized the Colorado law as a form of viewpoint discrimination, which requires “strict scrutiny”—the highest level of constitutional scrutiny.
The court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar leaves me staggered. With only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, the court opened old wounds that are far too familiar to countless LGBTQ+ people—many of whom experienced destructive forms of conversion therapy in their youth, often in educational contexts.
Even two liberal justices on the court would have us believe that the decision in Chiles v. Salazar was about protecting LGBTQ+ youth. In her concurring opinion, Justice Elena Kagan (joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor) proposed a hypothetical scenario in which a law barred therapy that affirmed sexual orientation or gender identity, noting that “the First Amendment would apply in the identical way.”
Yet, as legal scholar Scott Skinner-Thompson has noted, this rationale draws a false equivalence. It is well documented that LGBTQ+ youth experience significant harm through conversion practices, while evidence suggests that therapies of affirmation support the emotional well-being of LGBTQ+ youth.
The majority’s decision ignores the evidence presented in the case about the destructive nature of conversion practices by emphasizing that the Colorado therapist was simply honoring the wishes of the youth with whom she works—speaking with “them about their goals.” Indeed, Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion states that youth’s “own aspirations” lead them to therapy.
But it is irresponsible (to put it mildly) for professionals entrusted with caring for adolescents to base their engagement solely on the stated goals of youth, especially when those goals don’t align with professional evidence about emotional and physical well-being. If a student is being abused by an influential adult in their life, would it be ethical for a school counselor to help that student pursue their stated goal of learning to better please that adult? Or for an embedded therapist to help a student who is struggling with anorexia pursue their goal of losing more weight? Of course not.
This is why the court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar is so concerning. We know that conversion practices are significantly correlated with anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation, but LGBTQ+ minors—many of whom may not be out to themselves or others—sometimes choose conversion therapy and associated practices because of their religious convictions. It is only in later years that many such people recognize the devastating harm that they experienced, as documented in the testimonials collected by social-scientist researcher Lucas Wilson in Shame-Sex Attraction: Survivors’ Stories of Conversion Therapy.
My own experiences with formal conversion practices began in high school, at which time I was zealous about my Christian faith. In my senior year, I was recruited to attend a small, now defunct religious college. On the application, I disclosed what for me at the time felt like a terrible and unthinkable struggle with same-sex attraction. Through the encouragement of the college president (who was later embroiled in a scandal surrounding his own hidden relationship with a young man in the school), I spent many years working toward what I believed was a worthy goal to erase a fundamental aspect of my humanity.
The conversion practices I experienced while a student at the school ranged from talk therapy provided by someone who was licensed by the state to lengthy and ecstatic religious rituals, all by which I sought “freedom” from “homosexual tendencies.” These practices were situated within a strict religious purity culture that was designed to deny and suppress my personhood. The emotional turmoil I endured from the trauma of these conversion practices profoundly impacted my well-being for many years to come.
I am just one of far too many students and former students who were harmed by these practices.
The decision by the Supreme Court in Chiles v. Salazar is not a good one, but it’s not the worst possible outcome. The worst outcome would have been a broad decision about the illegality of conversion therapy bans nationwide. That decidedly did not happen. Instead, the Supreme Court remanded the case to a lower court to determine whether the state law as applied to talk therapy could survive heightened First Amendment scrutiny.
Inevitably, many more LGBTQ+ youth will continue to be subjected to practices that (at least for a time) they may view as a form of “healing” and “freedom” from what they believe to be deeply flawed parts of themselves. The decision by the Supreme Court in Chiles v. Salazar smooths the path for such forms of harm to be wrought on future generations.
