Supreme Court Rejects Case Challenging Washington’s Ban on ‘Gay Conversion Therapy

by Emmitt Barry, Worthy News Correspondent

(Worthy News) – On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a case challenging Washington state’s prohibition of “conversion therapy” for minors, which aims to change their sexual orientation or gender identity thereby allowing the law to remain in effect. The case was brought forth by a Christian therapist who deemed the 2018 measure as a violation of his free speech rights.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh expressed their dissent from the decision to deny review the case publicly. Each of them indicated their preference to grant a review of the case. Notably, it requires the agreement of four justices to include a case on the docket.

The Supreme Court, by not securing the support of four justices to review the case, rejected Brian Tingley’s appeal. Tingley aimed to contest a lower court’s dismissal of his case, asserting that the state’s actions constituted unlawful censorship and violated his freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In response, the state maintained that it was regulating professional conduct rather than curtailing freedom of speech.

In 2018, Governor Jay Inslee of Washington signed Senate Bill 5722 into law, which prohibited licensed therapists from conducting sexual orientation change efforts therapy on individuals under the age of consent.

“Under SB 5722, licensed counselors cannot voice anything other than the state-approved opinion on minors with gender dysphoria without facing punishment,” Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Tingley, argued that the Washington State Law poses significant consequences, including fines of $5,000 per violation, suspension from practice, and the potential permanent revocation of a counselor’s license.

“There is little question that SB 5722 regulates speech and therefore implicates the First Amendment. True, counseling is a form of therapy, but it is conducted solely through speech,” Justice Thomas wrote.

“The Ninth Circuit set a troubling precedent by condoning this regime. Although the Court declines to take this particular case, I have no doubt that the issue it presents will come before the Court again. When it does, the Court should do what it should have done here: grant certiorari to consider what the First Amendment requires,” Thomas stated in his dissent.

Latest Worthy News