Conversion Therapy Bans, as Applied to Talk Therapy, Regulate Speech and Not Just Conduct

This article presents Justice Gorsuch's Supreme Court opinion with straightforward legal exposition, using the Court's own reasoning and precedent-based language to explain the decision. While the framing is neutral in tone and methodology, it centers a libertarian-inflected First Amendment argument that prioritizes speech protections over public health regulation—a position that aligns more with right-leaning judicial philosophy.

Primary voices: elected official, state or recognized government

• This article does not address the public health rationale behind conversion therapy bans or evidence regarding their harms to LGBTQ+ minors.
• This article does not include perspectives from LGBTQ+ rights organizations, mental health professionals, or other stakeholders who supported the ban.
• This article does not discuss the broader implications of the ruling for other professional licensing regulations that restrict harmful practices.