A Supreme Court case, Chiles v. Salazar, challenges a state ban on 'conversion therapy' for gender dysphoria by arguing it censors what licensed counselors can say in the therapy room. The dispute turns on whether these laws regulate professional conduct or target viewpoint in client‑counselor conversations.
— If therapy bans are treated as content‑based speech restrictions, states’ authority over medical practice collides with the First Amendment, reshaping mental‑health policy nationwide.
Ilya Shapiro
2026.01.15
76% relevant
The legal issue—whether government‑linked professional settings may compel or forbid certain forms of speech—overlaps closely with the therapy‑ban First Amendment framing: Henderson tests the boundary between workplace professional duties and compelled ideological speech, echoing the same doctrinal conflict between regulation of conduct and regulation of speech.
Steve Stewart-Williams
2026.01.03
52% relevant
While not about clinical bans, the essay’s biological framing is the kind of scientific claim that underpins legal and policy arguments (for or against) about what practices are permissible in medicine and education; it therefore connects to litigation and constitutional debates over regulating therapists’ speech and practice.
Colin Wright
2025.12.02
70% relevant
Both items center on the legal and constitutional boundary between regulating professional conduct and policing expression: this article documents an administration seeking to lock a biological binary into federal definitions (an administrative move that will shape agency rulemaking and litigation), which parallels the existing idea’s focus on how courts may treat counseling and medical‑practice speech when states regulate gender‑related care.
Colin Wright
2025.10.15
95% relevant
The article centers on Chiles v. Salazar, where a licensed counselor challenges Colorado’s ban on 'conversion therapy' for minors as unconstitutional compelled/censored speech. It highlights the speech-versus-conduct line (pure talk therapy vs. medical interventions) and a circuit split, directly mirroring the idea’s claim that such bans raise First Amendment questions.
Colin Wright
2025.10.14
90% relevant
The article covers Chiles v. Salazar, where a licensed counselor challenges Colorado’s ban on 'conversion therapy' for minors as viewpoint‑based suppression of talk therapy, exactly the scenario framed by this idea (therapy speech vs. state regulation). It details the circuit split, First Amendment arguments, and justices’ questions on speech versus conduct.
2025.10.07
82% relevant
The newsletter highlights Chiles v. Salazar as a key SCOTUS case testing whether bans on certain talk therapies for gender dysphoria violate the First Amendment—directly aligning with the idea that therapy bans operate as content-based speech restrictions rather than neutral medical regulation.
Ilya Shapiro
2025.10.06
100% relevant
Colorado’s law defines banned 'conversion therapy' to include attempts to change sexual orientation or gender identity; the Tenth Circuit upheld it as conduct regulation, now up for review.