The Supreme Court just fractured the liberal bloc in ways that reveal the sensational headlines were fiction, but the First Amendment collision with state medical regulation was entirely real.
Story Snapshot
- Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on March 31, 2026, striking down Colorado’s conversion therapy ban for minors as a First Amendment violation
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter, isolated from liberal colleagues Kagan and Sotomayor who joined the majority
- Claims that Justice Kagan “nuked” Jackson are false; Kagan filed a concurrence agreeing with the majority, not attacking Jackson
- The ruling imperils similar bans in roughly 20 states and expands professional speech protections beyond medical regulation
The Court’s Stunning Liberal Split
The Supreme Court delivered a jarring 8-1 decision in Chiles v. Salazar that vacated Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy for minors. Justice Jackson stood alone in dissent, reading a 35-page opinion from the bench in a rare display of judicial disagreement. Her liberal colleagues, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, joined the conservative majority in prioritizing First Amendment speech protections over state medical regulation. No evidence supports the viral claim that Kagan criticized Jackson; Kagan simply concurred with distinctions while agreeing the ban violated free speech rights. The decision transforms how states can regulate licensed therapists.
What Colorado Tried to Prohibit
Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law prohibited licensed professionals from providing therapy aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or reducing gender nonconformity. The law carved out exemptions for gender transition assistance while targeting practices the American Psychological Association deems harmful and ineffective. Medical consensus identifies conversion therapy as causing PTSD, anxiety, depression, and elevated suicide risk in LGBTQ youth. By 2019, 26 states had enacted similar protections. Plaintiff Amy Chiles, a conservative Christian counselor, challenged the law as violating her constitutional rights to free speech and religious practice, arguing it forced her to provide only affirming care.
The First Amendment Versus Public Health
The majority framed Colorado’s ban as unconstitutional content-based speech restriction, preventing therapists from expressing certain viewpoints during counseling sessions. Lower courts had rejected this argument, treating the law as legitimate medical conduct regulation within state police powers, comparable to bans on harmful medical treatments. Justice Jackson’s dissent defended this position, arguing states possess clear authority to regulate professional conduct that harms minors. The eight-justice majority disagreed, establishing that professional speech during therapy receives robust First Amendment protection even when medical bodies condemn the practice. This reasoning could complicate future state efforts to regulate other controversial treatments.
Jackson’s Isolated Stand
Jackson’s willingness to dissent alone against her liberal colleagues reflects a pattern legal analysts noted with surprise. CBS coverage highlighted her isolation on regulatory issues, where she consistently defends state authority to restrict practices deemed harmful. Her dissent quoted testimony from individuals harmed by conversion therapy, including one who stated the experience “came close to killing me.” She emphasized protecting vulnerable minors from documented psychological damage. Yet Kagan and Sotomayor prioritized the therapist’s constitutional rights to discuss her religious beliefs during sessions. The split demonstrates that First Amendment absolutism now commands bipartisan support on the Court, leaving Jackson’s regulatory deference doctrine without allies.
Consequences Beyond Colorado
The ruling immediately affects approximately 20 states with similar conversion therapy bans, potentially rendering them unenforceable pending further litigation. Therapists can now provide conversion therapy to minors in Colorado and challenge comparable restrictions elsewhere. LGBTQ advocacy organizations warn the decision exposes vulnerable youth to increased psychological harm, contradicting established medical guidance. The decision expands professional speech protections in ways that may invite challenges to other treatment regulations, from unlicensed medical practices to experimental therapies. States lose substantial authority to define the boundaries of acceptable licensed care when speech becomes the dominant constitutional consideration.
The Real Story Behind the Sensational Claims
The viral narrative claiming Kagan attacked Jackson as “insane” collapses under scrutiny. Kagan filed a concurrence that agreed with the majority outcome while adding legal distinctions; she did not rebuke or criticize Jackson. The sensationalized framing served to manufacture conflict among liberal justices where none existed beyond the normal course of judicial disagreement. Jackson dissented based on her view of state regulatory authority; Kagan concurred based on her First Amendment analysis. Both positions reflect coherent legal philosophies without personal animosity. The fabricated controversy reveals how clickbait headlines distort Supreme Court proceedings, turning substantive constitutional debate into manufactured drama that misleads readers about actual judicial reasoning and relationships.
Sources:
Conversion Therapy Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Dissent Chiles v. Salazar – Ms. Magazine
