U.S. Supreme Court
Justices appear sympathetic to Christian therapist in conversion therapy case
The Supreme Court appeared divided over whether Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy violates free speech or falls within the state’s power to regulate medical practices.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in the case of Chiles v. Salazar, which could reverse conversion therapy bans across the United States.
Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist from Colorado, works as a counselor specializing in serving clients who often seek “religiously informed care” that aligns with traditional biblical understandings of sexuality and gender. She has argued that a 2019 Colorado law HB19-1129, also known as the “Prohibit Conversion Therapy for a Minor Act,” violates her First Amendment rights.
The act serves as a regulatory law in the state and was put in place to prevent any potential harm that numerous studies by health associations across the country — including the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association — show this particular form of “therapy” can cause. From an increased risk of suicide to being comparable to torture by the United Nations, 23 other states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have passed laws restricting the practice.
Chiles brought forward a pre-enforcement lawsuit against the state, arguing that the way the law is set up has caused a chilling effect on her ability to provide her “faith-informed” services to clients with religious preferences — often religious parents — and has made her stop any discussions that could be related to sexuality or gender identity. She argues this violates her right to the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
A majority of the justices appeared to be sympathetic to Chiles’s argument that the conversion therapy ban limits her religious rights on the basis of viewpoint — indicating it may infringe on free speech. Justice Samuel Alito went as far as to say that the law was “blatant viewpoint discrimination.”
Other members of the court, however, raised questions regarding Chiles’s standing, or the right to fight back against the law, as the ban was not explicitly enforced, nor was Chiles charged with anything. Justice Sonia Sotomayor went on to say that the sheer lack of enforcement undermines the idea of an “imminent threat,” while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the law’s regulation of professional conduct falls within a state’s traditional authority to oversee medical practices.
Several justices, notably Amy Coney Barrett, seemed to think this case should be sent back down to a lower court for further examination under a stricter constitutional standard.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the legitimacy of Chiles’s claim of harm, asking, “We have basically six years of no enforcement of this law… how does that fit into being an imminent threat of prosecution?”
Justice Elena Kagan pressed the need for scientific evidence, saying, “You need to have studies, not just intuitions that harm exists. You need to have a scientific showing of causation rather than rely on your intuitions that this causes harm.”
Justice Brown Jackson expressed skepticism over the First Amendment framing, noting, “It’s just a little puzzling to me that she would stand in a different position than a medical professional who has exactly the same goals, exactly the same interests, and would just be prescribing medication for that rather than her talking with the client.”
Justice Alito, meanwhile, raised concerns about politicization within medicine, asking, “Have there been times when the medical consensus has been politicized, has been taken over by ideology?”
Justice Coney Barrett questioned how far a state’s authority should go in cases of medical disagreement. “So let me describe medical uncertainty as competing medical views, and let’s say that you have some medical experts that think gender-affirming care is dangerous to children and some that say that this kind of conversion talk therapy is dangerous. Can a state pick a side?”
James A. Campbell, who represented Chiles in court, said that not only is Chiles’s speech being censored, but by not allowing Chiles to continue providing this type of “therapy,” the government is causing harm to families who want their children to receive this type of treatment.
“There is irreparable harm going on right now. Ms. Chiles is being silenced. The kids and the families who want help… are being left without any support,” Campbell told the Supreme Court justices. “This is an ongoing active dialogue where she’s helping them to explore their goals, and that absolutely has to be protected by the First Amendment.”
Shannon W. Stevenson, the Colorado Solicitor General who worked on behalf of the state, argued that an overwhelming amount of medical advice cites this type of “therapy” as more destructive than helpful, and that no other medical restriction laws specifically allow a doctor to give patients incorrect information because it goes against their religious beliefs.
“The medical consensus has been around for a very long time. Those types of statutes govern medical professionals… and no one has ever suggested that a doctor has a First Amendment defense to say the wrong advice to their patient,” Stevenson said.
“The harms from conversion therapy come from when you tell a young person you can change this innate thing about yourself. They try and fail, and then they have shame and they’re miserable,” she added.
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, America’s largest LGBTQ civil rights organization, issued a statement following the court’s arguments.
“Today’s oral arguments made clear that, as Colorado’s solicitor general stated, history, precedent, and commonsense must allow states to hold licensed providers accountable to the recommendations of every mainstream medical and mental health association in this country. The Supreme Court must uphold the constitutionality of these legal restrictions and stand strongly between our children and these abusive practices.”
While it may be months before a decision on this case is brought forward, the decision, expected by summer, could have implications for whether states are allowed to regulate conversion therapy as a form of medical treatment, or if they encroach on the First Amendment.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
Justices declined to revisit the Obergefell decision
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Rowan County, Ky., clerk best known for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Following the Obergefell ruling, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether and has since filed multiple appeals seeking to challenge same-sex marriage protections. The court once again rejected her efforts on Monday.
In this latest appeal, Davis sought to overturn a $100,000 monetary award she was ordered to pay to David Moore and David Ermold, a same-sex couple to whom she denied a marriage license. Her petition also urged the court to use the case as a vehicle to revisit the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
The petition, along with the couple’s brief in opposition, was submitted to the Supreme Court on Oct. 22 and considered during the justices’ private conference on Nov. 7. Davis needed at least four votes for the court to take up her case, but Monday’s order shows she fell short.
Cathy Renna, the director of communications for the National LGBTQ Task Force, a non-profit organization that works towards supporting the LGBQ community through grassroots organizing told the Washington Blade:
“Today’s decision is not surprising given the longshot status of Davis’s claim, but it’s a relief that the Supreme Court will not hear it, given the current make up of the court itself. We hope that this settles the matter and marriage equality remains the law of the land for same-sex couples.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released the following statement:
“Today, love won again. When public officials take an oath to serve their communities, that promise extends to everyone — including LGBTQ+ people. The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences.
Thanks to the hard work of HRC and so many, marriage equality remains the law of the land through Obergefell v. Hodges and the Respect for Marriage Act. Even so, we must remain vigilant.
It’s no secret that there are many in power right now working to undermine our freedoms — including marriage equality — and attack the dignity of our community any chance they get. Last week, voters rejected the politics of fear, division, and hate, and chose leaders who believe in fairness, freedom, and the future. In race after race, the American people rejected anti-transgender attacks and made history electing pro-equality candidates up and down the ballot.
And from California to Virginia to New Jersey to New York City, LGBTQ+ voters and Equality Voters made the winning difference. We will never relent and will not stop fighting until all of us are free.”
The Log Cabin Republicans, a organization dedicated to conservative LGBTQ people, praising the Court’s decision.
“After months of hand-wringing and fear-mongering by Gay Inc., Democrats, and the media, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court sided with the American people and common sense and declined to revisit marriage equality,” Interim Executive Director Ed Williams said in a statement. “Just like Justice Amy Coney Barrett hinted at earlier this year, Obergefell is settled. Marriage equality has been, and will continue to be, the law of the land.”
This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.
U.S. Supreme Court
LGBTQ legal leaders to Supreme Court: ‘honor your precedent, protect our families’
Experts insist Kim Davis case lacks merit
The U.S. Supreme Court considered hearing a case from Kim Davis on Friday that could change the legality of same-sex marriage in the United States.
Davis, best known as the former county clerk for Rowan County, Ky., who defied federal court orders by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — and later, to any couples at all — is back in the headlines this week as she once again attempts to get Obergefell v. Hodges overturned on a federal level.
She has tried to get the Supreme Court to overturn this case before — the first time was just weeks after the initial 2015 ruling — arguing that, in her official capacity as a county clerk, she should have the right to refuse same-sex marriage licenses based on her First Amendment rights. The court has emphatically said Davis, at least in her official capacity as a county clerk, does not have the right to act on behalf of the state while simultaneously following her personal religious beliefs.
The Washington Blade spoke with Karen Loewy, interim deputy legal director for litigation at Lambda Legal, the oldest and largest national legal organization advancing civil rights for the LGBTQ community and people living with HIV through litigation, education, and public policy, to discuss the realistic possibilities of the court taking this case, its potential implications, and what LGBTQ couples concerned about this can do now to protect themselves.
Loewy began by explaining how the court got to where it is today.
“So Kim Davis has petitioned the Supreme Court for review of essentially what was [a] damages award that the lower court had given to a couple that she refused a marriage license to in her capacity as a clerk on behalf of the state,” Loewy said, explaining Davis has tried (and failed) to get this same appeal going in the past. “This is not the first time that she has asked the court to weigh in on this case. This is her second bite at the apple at the U.S. Supreme Court, and in 2020, the last time that she did this, the court denied review.”
Davis’s entire argument rests on her belief that she has the ability to act both as a representative of the state and according to her personal religious convictions — something, Loewy said, no court has ever recognized as a legal right.
“She’s really claiming a religious, personal, religious exemption from her duties on behalf of the state, and that’s not a thing.”
That, Loewy explained, is ultimately a good thing for the sanctity of same-sex marriage.
“I think there’s a good reason to think that they will, yet again, say this is not an appropriate vehicle for the question and deny review.”
She also noted that public opinion on same-sex marriage remains overwhelmingly positive.
“The Respect for Marriage Act is a really important thing that has happened since Obergefell. This is a federal statute that mandates that marriages that were lawfully entered, wherever they were lawfully entered, get respect at the federal level and across state lines.”
“Public opinion around marriage has changed so dramatically … even at the state level, you’re not going to see the same immediate efforts to undermine marriages of same-sex couples that we might have a decade ago before Obergefell came down.”
A clear majority of U.S. adults — 65.8 percent — continue to support keeping the Obergefell v. Hodges decision in place, protecting the right to same-sex marriage. That support breaks down to 83 percent of liberals, 68 percent of moderates, and about half of conservatives saying they support marriage equality. These results align with other recent polling, including Gallup’s May 2025 estimate showing 68 percent support for same-sex marriage.
“Where we are now is quite different from where we were in terms of public opinion … opponents of marriage equality are loud, but they’re not numerous.”
Loewy also emphasized that even if, by some chance, something did happen to the right to marry, once a marriage is issued, it cannot be taken back.
“First, the Respect for Marriage Act is an important reason why people don’t need to panic,” she said. “Once you are married, you are married, there isn’t a way to sort of undo marriages that were lawfully licensed at the time.”
She continued, explaining that LGBTQ people might feel vulnerable right now as the current political climate becomes less welcoming, but there is hope — and the best way to respond is to move thoughtfully.
“I don’t have a crystal ball. I also can’t give any sort of specific advice. But what I would say is, you know, I understand people’s fear. Everything feels really vulnerable right now, and this administration’s attacks on the LGBTQ community make everybody feel vulnerable for really fair and real reasons. I think the practical likelihood of Obergefell being reversed at this moment in time is very low. You know, that doesn’t mean there aren’t other, you know, case vehicles out there to challenge the validity of Obergefell, but they’re not on the Supreme Court’s doorstep, and we will see how it all plays out for folks who feel particularly concerned and vulnerable.”
Loewy went on to say there are steps LGBTQ couples and families can take to safeguard their relationships, regardless of what the court decides. She recommended getting married (if that feels right for them) and utilizing available legal tools such as estate planning and relationship documentation.
“There are things, steps that they can take to protect their families — putting documentation in place and securing relationships between parents and children, doing estate planning, making sure that their relationship is recognized fully throughout their lives and their communities. Much of that is not different from the tools that folks have had at their disposal prior to the availability of marriage equality … But I think it behooves everyone to make sure they have an estate plan and they’ve taken those steps to secure their family relationships.”
“I think, to the extent that the panic is rising for folks, those are tools that they have at their disposal to try and make sure that their family and their relationships are as secure as possible,” she added.
When asked what people can do at the state and local level to protect these rights from being eroded, Loewy urged voters to support candidates and initiatives that codify same-sex marriage at smaller levels — which would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for a federal reversal of Obergefell to take effect.
“With regard to marriage equality … states can be doing … amend state constitutions, to remove any of the previous language that had been used to bar same-sex couples from marrying.”
Lambda Legal CEO Kevin Jennings echoed Loewy’s points in a statement regarding the possibility of Obergefell being overturned:
“In the United States, we can proudly say that marriage equality is the law,” he said via email. “As the Supreme Court discusses whether to take up for review a challenge to marriage equality, Lambda Legal urges the court to honor what millions of Americans already know as a fundamental truth and right: LGBTQ+ families are part of the nation’s fabric.
“LGBTQ+ families, including same-sex couples, are living in and contributing to every community in this country: building loving homes and small businesses, raising children, caring for pets and neighbors, and volunteering in their communities. The court took note of this reality in Obergefell v. Hodges, citing the ‘hundreds of thousands of children’ already being raised in ‘loving and nurturing homes’ led by same-sex couples. The vows that LGBTQ+ couples have taken in their weddings might have been a personal promise to each other. Still, the decision of the Supreme Court is an unbreakable promise affirming the simple truth that our Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law to all, not just some.”
He noted the same things Loewy pointed out — namely that, at minimum, the particular avenue Davis is attempting to use to challenge same-sex marriage has no legal footing.
“Let’s be clear: There is no case here. Granting review in this case would unnecessarily open the door to harming families and undermine our rights. Lower courts have found that a government employee violates the law when she refuses to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples as her job requires. There is no justifiable reason for the court to revisit settled law or destabilize families.”
He also addressed members of the LGBTQ community who might be feeling fearful at this moment:
“To our community, we say: this fight is not new. Our community has been fighting for decades for our right to love whom we love, to marry and to build our families. It was not quick, not easy, not linear. We have lived through scary and dark times before, endured many defeats, but we have persevered. When we persist, we prevail.”
And he issued a direct message to the court, urging justices to honor the Constitution over one person’s religious beliefs.
“To the court, we ask it to honor its own precedent, to honor the Constitution’s commands of individual liberty and equal protection under the law, and above all, to honor the reality of LGBTQ families — deeply rooted in every town and city in America. There is no reason to grant review in this case.”
Kenneth Gordon, a partner at Brinkley Morgan, a family law firm that works with individuals and couples, including same-sex partners, to meet their legal and financial goals, also emphasized the importance of not panicking and of using available documentation processes such as estate planning.
“From a purely legal standpoint, overturning Obergefell v. Hodges would present significant complications. While it is unlikely that existing same-sex marriages would be invalidated, particularly given the protections of the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act, states could regain the authority to limit or prohibit future marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That would create a patchwork of laws across the country, where a couple could be legally married in one state but not recognized as married if they moved to or even visited another state.
“The legal ripple effects could be substantial. Family law issues such as adoption, parental rights, inheritance, health care decision-making, and property division all rely on the legal status of marriage. Without uniform recognition, couples could face uncertainty in areas like custody determinations, enforcement of spousal rights in medical emergencies, or the ability to inherit from a spouse without additional legal steps.
“Courts generally strive for consistency, and creating divergent state rules on marriage recognition would reintroduce conflicts that Obergefell was intended to resolve. From a legal systems perspective, that inconsistency would invite years of litigation and impose significant personal and financial burdens on affected families.”
Finally, Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson issued a statement about the possibility of the Supreme Court deciding to hear Davis’s appeal:
“Marriage equality isn’t just the law of the land — it’s woven into the fabric of American life,” said Robinson. “For more than a decade, millions of LGBTQ+ couples have gotten married, built families, and contributed to their communities. The American people overwhelmingly support that freedom. But Kim Davis and the anti-LGBTQ+ extremists backing her see a cynical opportunity to attack our families and re-litigate what’s already settled. The court should reject this paper-thin attempt to undermine marriage equality and the dignity of LGBTQ+ people.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court rules White House can implement anti-trans passport policy
ACLU, Lambda Legal filed lawsuits against directive.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday said the Trump-Vance administration can implement a policy that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers.
President Donald Trump once he took office signed an executive order that outlined the policy. A memo the Washington Blade obtained directed State Department personnel to “suspend any application where the applicant is seeking to change their sex marker from that defined in the executive order pending further guidance.”
The White House only recognizes two genders: male and female.
The American Civil Liberties Union in February filed a lawsuit against the passport directive on behalf of seven trans and nonbinary people.
A federal judge in Boston in April issued a preliminary junction against it. A three-judge panel on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in September ruled against the Trump-Vance administration’s motion to delay the move.
A federal judge in Maryland also ruled against the passport policy. (Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven trans people.)
“This is a heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves, and fuel on the fire the Trump administration is stoking against transgender people and their constitutional rights,” said Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, in a statement. “Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk that they will face harassment and violence and adds to the considerable barriers they already face in securing freedom, safety, and acceptance. We will continue to fight this policy and work for a future where no one is denied self-determination over their identity.”
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
The Supreme Court ruling is here.
213 House members ask Speaker Johnson to condemn anti-trans rhetoric
D.C. LGBTQ bars ‘hanging in there’ amid tough economy
Japan’s first female prime minister reluctant to advance LGBTQ rights
Rep. Grijalva reiterates LGBTQ support at swearing in
PHOTOS: Cheers to Out Sports!
PHOTOS: Whitman-Walker Gala
Activist hosts Diwali celebration in D.C.
Calendar: November 14-20
Harford school board appeals state’s book ban decision to circuit court
