The United States Supreme Court moved in a divisive way Monday, declining to deliberate on a pivotal case that could potentially have set the legal precedents for the bounds of the First Amendment. The case brought forward to the court questions the constitutionality of a Washington state law, known as Senate Bill 5722, barring licensed therapists from practicing conversion therapy on minors. The court’s decision not to take on the case was part of the orders listed from their private conference held last Friday.
The questioning of the law’s constitutionality came from Brian Tingley, a Washington marriage and family counselor, who challenged the state law in court back in 2021. Tingley’s argument rests on the position that the law infringes upon his First Amendment rights, essentially limiting his ability to freely dialog with his younger clients about issues centered on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Prior to reaching the Supreme Court’s chambers, Tingley’s lawsuit was dismissed by the District Court, which cited an earlier 2014 verdict in a similar case involving California’s conversion therapy ban, Pickup v. Brown. Undeterred, Tingley took his case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, referencing the 2018 Supreme Court’s decision in the case of National Institute for Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. Tingley’s argument was that the decision in Becerra negated the standing of the Pickup decision. The Ninth Circuit, however, rejected Tingley’s argument and upheld the Washington law.
Despite Tingley’s appeal being rejected, with the backing of a dozen states led by Idaho and various religious organizations, the counselor prompted the Supreme Court to review his case. But ultimately, on Monday, the justices declined Tingley’s appeal, Justice Brett Kavanaugh among those signaling he would’ve granted his petition.
While the majority of the Supreme Court refused to take up the case, dissent was not absent among the judges. Both Justices Thomas and Alito authored dissenting opinions on the court’s denial to deliberate on the case. Thomas, in a five-page opinion, argued that such state laws prevented “licensed counselors” from voicing “anything other than the state-approved opinion on minors with gender dysphoria without facing punishment.” Alito echoed this sentiment, adding that “all restrictions on speech merit careful scrutiny.”
This denial by the Supreme Court to hear the case does not mean that the topic has been laid to rest. Given the high interest and controversy surrounding such laws, it’s likely this issue will find its way back before the court again in the future.
You can read the full rundown on this subject at SCOTUSblog.