Judge signals uphill battle for Minnesota’s conversion therapy ban

While hesitant to grant a preliminary injunction in favor of faith-based counselors, the judge appeared concerned over the act's future given Supreme Court precedent.MINNEAPOLIS (CN) — An association of Christian-based counselors urged a federal judge Monday to shield its members from Minnesota’s conversion therapy ban in line with a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision this year.In its pursuit of a preliminary injunction, the Christian Counselors Freedom Alliance argues Minnesota’s law restricts speech and discriminates against faith-based counselors seeking to provide talk therapy consistent with their religion — the basis of its August suit.Minnesota’s 2023 law restricts mental health practitioners from engaging in conversion therapy, including talk therapy, with minor clients or vulnerable adults if the practice attempts to change an individual’s gender identity or sexual orientation.Violations are met with professional discipline, including potential license revocation. The statute does not ban exploratory discussions about gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs.The law went largely unchallenged until the U.S. Supreme Court’s March ruling against Colorado’s conversion therapy ban in Chiles v. Salazar found such restrictions regulate speech based on viewpoint.While the court did not completely invalidate the Colorado statute, the 8-1 ruling held that purely verbal talk therapy is “protected speech" and must be evaluated under strict scrutiny — the highest, most difficult constitutional standard.U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez appeared highly skeptical of Minnesota’s chances of success after the Chilesdecision, which she said fundamentally altered how courts evaluate state speech restrictions.“It is very hard for me to imagine any court reading Chiles and not thinking you cannot have a discriminatory statute,” the Joe Biden appointee said. “It’s hard for me under Chiles to see this not as viewpoint discrimination.”The alliance claims Minnesota’s law is “materially indistinguishable” from Colorado’s and must be struck down.Like Colorado, Minnesota said its restriction regulates the “conduct” of counseling rather than speech, and that while the statute takes a position against a certain viewpoint, it’s a position that should be allowed.“We’re talking about a clinical setting where people are getting therapy, and the harms are so significant,” Minnesota’s attorney, Margaret Jacot, said. “It would be a massive change to say ‘here’s one area of law where science no longer matters.’”The American Psychological Association and 13 other mental health and medical professional organizations say conversion therapy does not meet the criteria of a legitimate therapeutic treatment, and evidence links the practice to adverse mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety and suicide attempts, especially among minors.While cautious of the act’s legality, Menendez noted the extensive expert opinions and medical statistics utilized by Minnesota throughout court documents heavily support a decision rooted in fact.Though Menendez appeared skeptical of Minnesota’s ban at-large, she noted the alliance’s pursuit of a preliminary injunction three years after it was enacted raises questions over the true level of harm.“Chilesdidn’t do anything to change what your clients are experiencing,” she said. “If this met that heightened standard for irreparable harm, you would have tried anyway.”The alliance’s attorney, Douglas Wardlow, argued the legal foundation at the time of the act’s enforcement was “very shaky,” and it was in the group’s best interests to wait for other cases to play out.“The pathway to relief wasn’t clear, and I think it was reasonable to wait for the Supreme Court to make its decision,” Wardlow said. “Had the Supreme Court gone the other way, it would have been a lot of wasted effort.”Wardlow added that Minnesota’s statute is unclear, vague and has a chilling effect on faith-based counselors who are unaware whether their conduct is restricted.“It’s very clear that a counselor may not reduce same-sex attractions or reduce behaviors and expressions,” he said. “The question is, what exactly does it mean to seek to generate a change, whose intent governs, is it the counselors’ goal? Is it the client’s goal? None of that is clear.”While the alliance argued many of its clients — of whom roughly 90% are Christians — engage in conversion talk therapy voluntarily, the state said consent is not the issue.“There’s a lot of stigma against people who are LGBTQ, so naturally people are going to want a magic fix to that,” Jacot said. “A lot of people who go to conversion therapy go voluntarily, but the science says it doesn’t work, and it’s that failure that causes the harm that lasts the rest of their lives.”The state urged the court to deny the preliminary injunction motion in accordance with medical guidance and to preserve the status quo in effect for more than three years.The suit is an “as-applied challenge,” meaning any injunction would strictly grant alliance members relief rather than invalidate the entire law — though a ruling in favor of the counselors would provide a roadmap for similar challenges.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads