Anonymous
Three Supreme Court Cases Targ(...) 10/08/25(Wed)11:27:50 No.41295932

File: photo-1603119380999-ef522(...).png (636 KB, 1080x608)

636 KB PNG

Three Supreme Court Cases Targeting LGBTQ+ People See Movement This Week Anonymous 10/08/25(Wed)11:27:50 No.41295932

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/three-supreme-court-cases-targeting

>The kick off of the Supreme Court 2025-2026 term could be among the most consequential for transgender Americans yet.

>Several cases on Monday and Tuesday progressed before the court, ones that cumulatively touch upon every aspect of the rights and lives of trans Americans. Here’s a breakdown of what those cases really mean.

>Chiles v. Salazar

>In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether conversion therapy bans violate the free speech rights of therapists. This practice has been debunked by every single reputable, relevant medical organization; there is no evidence that it is effective, and even more, it often leads to lifelong psychological harm, such as increased risk of self-harm and suicide.

>Conversion therapy is banned in over 20 states. But Chiles, the face of a years-long legal campaign by hate groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, argues that Colorado’s anti-conversion therapy laws violate her First Amendment rights as a Christian. On that front, Chiles filed a complaint against the state and Patty Salazar, executive director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies.

>Lower courts previously denied Chiles a preliminary injunction to block the state’s anti-conversion therapy law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled it regulates professional conduct that only incidentally involves speech—meaning the state is well within its right to constrain it. But Chiles successfully petitioned SCOTUS to review the case.

>CNN’s Supreme Court correspondent John Fritze wrote on Tuesday:

>During a surprisingly low-key and short 90-minute session, several justices appeared to reject the idea the state can regulate “talk therapy” the same way it may regulate medical conduct. Much of the debate seemed to focus on how Colorado would lose, rather than whether it would do so.