Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a strong rebuke to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Tuesday following a significant ruling. The Court invalidated Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors when applied to talk therapy, leading to a clear ideological split.

The Majority Opinion: Viewpoint Discrimination and Free Speech

The Supreme Court ruled that Colorado’s law constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. The case centered on a statute broadly banning licensed counselors from engaging in “conversion therapy” with minors.

Targeting Speech, Not Just Conduct

Justice Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, asserting that the Colorado statute directly targeted speech based on its viewpoint. This triggered the Constitution’s most demanding free-speech standards, conflicting with established precedent.

Gorsuch rejected the argument that the law merely regulated professional conduct incidentally affecting speech. He stated that decades of precedent dictate whether a law restricts speech because it is integral to unlawful conduct or for reasons unrelated to its content.

“At bottom,” Gorsuch wrote, both Colorado and Justice Jackson “fundamentally misconceive” the Court’s “speech‑incident‑to‑conduct” cases. He concluded that Colorado’s regulation was not incident to conduct but rather “regulates speech as speech.”

Justice Jackson’s Vigorous Dissent

Justice Jackson was the sole dissenter in the case, arguing that the majority decision dangerously undermines the authority of states to regulate medical care. She viewed the Colorado law as a necessary exercise of police power to safeguard minors from harmful and ineffective medical practices.

Protecting Minors from Harmful Practices

Jackson emphasized that professional organizations widely discredit conversion therapy, linking it to severe mental health issues among LGBTQ youth, including anxiety and suicidal ideation.

She contended that the First Amendment should not prevent states from restricting treatment-related speech when it falls under medical practice regulation. Jackson cited precedents like National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which permit regulating professional conduct even with incidental speech involvement.

Jackson warned that the ruling could make “speech‑only therapies” virtually immune to oversight, allowing professionals to bypass care standards verbally. She argued that when providing therapy, a professional like “Chiles is not speaking in the ether.”

Jackson countered that the majority misunderstood existing precedents. She expressed concern about the long-term impact: “Ultimately, because the majority plays with fire in this case, I fear that the people of this country will get burned.”

Scope and Implications of the Ruling

Conversion therapy involves practices aimed at altering a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. While older, aversive techniques are mostly gone, non-aversive talk therapy remains controversial.

The Court’s decision does not void all conversion therapy bans. Gorsuch clarified that states can still prohibit coercive practices and regulate conduct causing demonstrable harm.

However, the ruling confirms that when a law targets speech based on viewpoint, even professionally, the First Amendment applies fully. Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor concurred but noted the outcome might differ if Colorado’s law had been viewpoint-neutral.

With over 20 states having similar laws, the ruling carries significant nationwide implications. Justices suggested that laws written in a more tailored manner might survive future judicial review.