WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case of a licensed marriage and family therapist who sought to strike down Washington state’s ban that prevents counselors from providing minor clients with help to reduce or eliminate unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or gender confusion. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh would have voted to take the case because of the current conflict in the federal Courts of Appeal as a result of Liberty Counsel’s cases, Otto v. City of Boca Raton and Vazzo v. City of Tampa, both of which struck down nearly identical counseling bans that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in Tingley v. Ferguson.
Liberty Counsel
Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Liberty Counsel will continue until
these unconstitutional counseling bans are overturned nationwide. It is not a
matter of if, but only a matter of when, all these counseling bans will be
struck down. That day is coming. Liberty Counsel has been in this fight since
California passed the first counseling ban. Our recent wins at the Court of
Appeals sets up a conflict that the High Court will have to resolve. Government
has no authority to prohibit one viewpoint of talk therapy.”
Brian Tingley is
a licensed marriage and family counselor of over 20 years in Tacoma,
Washington. He works with children, adults, and couples dealing with marital
and family conflicts, sexual orientation and gender identity struggles,
depression, anger, and stress management. In 2018, Washington passed a law to
censor conversations between clients and counselors like Tingley by dictating
which goals they can or cannot discuss with minor clients regarding unwanted
same sex attractions, behaviors, or gender confusion. The law threatens
counselors with fines of up to $5,000 per violation, suspension from practice,
and even permanent revocation of their licenses.
Justices Clarence
Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh stated they would have taken the case.
Justices Thomas and Alito cite Liberty Counsel’s cases, Otto v. City of Boca Raton, Pickup
v. Brown, and King v. Governor of New
Jersey, as the basis for a split among the courts which satisfies the High
Court’s established criteria for granting review. Justice Thomas also invites
further challenges to these bans because he states it will return before the
High Court again. Justice Alito also references the Otto decision and questions
the continuing validity of the decision in Liberty Counsel’s case King v. Governor of New Jersey, after
the ruling in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v.
Becerra.
Justice Thomas
wrote: “This petition asks us to consider whether Washington can censor
counselors who help minors accept their biological sex. Because this question
has divided the Courts of Appeals and strikes at the heart of the First
Amendment, I would grant review.”
“There is a
fierce public debate over how best to help minors with gender dysphoria. The
petitioner, Brian Tingley, stands on one side of the divide. He believes that a
person’s sex is ‘a gift from God, integral to our very being.’ As a licensed
marriage and family counselor, Tingley seeks to assist minors who suffer from
gender dysphoria but ‘want to become comfortable with their biological sex.’
Tingley does so through ‘talk therapy’—i.e., therapy conducted solely through
speech. The State of Washington is on the other side of the divide. Its view is
that the State should ‘protec[t] its minors against exposure to serious harms
caused by’ counseling to change a minor’s gender identity, and, as a result,
that counselors should only affirm a minor’s chosen gender identity. Washington
silenced one side of this debate by enacting S.B. 5722,” wrote Justice Thomas.
“The Ninth
Circuit’s opinion created a Circuit split. Two years earlier, the Eleventh
Circuit concluded that near-identical Florida municipal ordinances did regulate
speech. Otto v. Boca Raton. The
Eleventh Circuit held the ordinances unconstitutional because they prohibited
speech based on content and viewpoint, and could not satisfy strict scrutiny.
The Third Circuit has also held that laws restricting talk therapy designed to
change a client’s sexual orientation regulate speech, not conduct. King v. Governor of New Jersey,
abrogated on other grounds by National
Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. Tingley asks us to
resolve this Circuit split and review whether SB 5722 violates the First
Amendment. We should have.”
Justice Alito
wrote, “In recent years, 20 States and the District of Columbia have adopted
laws prohibiting or restricting the practice of conversion therapy. It is
beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech, and all restrictions on speech
merit careful scrutiny. There is a conflict in the Circuits about the
constitutionality of such laws. Compare with Otto v. Boca Raton. And the Ninth
Circuit’s holding is based on the highly debatable view that its prior decision
in Pickup v. Brown, survived at least
in part our decision in National
Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which singled out Pickup
for disapproval.”
No comments:
Post a Comment