A lawsuit brought by several Catholic Charities affiliates in Michigan over the state’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy” could lead to a major U.S. Supreme Court decision on March 31 striking down the controversial rule.
In a nearly unanimous decision in the case Chiles v. Salazar, the high court found that Colorado violated the First Amendment by telling therapists they could not help youth struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions and gender dysphoria.
The Colorado law represents “a serious attack” on American free speech protections, the court said, noting that the rule is “at the heart of the First Amendment’s protections.”
Michigan lawsuit challenges similar law
A religious liberty attorney told EWTN News on April 1 that a similar lawsuit brought by several Catholic Charities affiliates in Michigan could be decided favorably for the charity groups following the Supreme Court’s decision.
Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Freedom, said the lawsuit brought by Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee and Hillsdale counties against the state of Michigan has been stalled since January.
U.S. District Judge Jane Beckering ruled in favor of an originally Catholic charity group in its challenge to a Michigan law banning “conversion therapy” for minors.
Catholic Charities provides a variety of medical services, including “gender identity and sexuality issues”. The judge granted a temporary injunction against the Michigan law in January and then put the lawsuit on hold while awaiting the ruling in the Chiles case, Goodrich said.
Goodrich said the Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles was “really helpful”.
“We think this confirms that Michigan’s law is unconstitutional,” he said. “We’re going to talk to Michigan and then we’ll try to get a final decision from the district court.”
Attorneys for Catholic Charities groups emailed the Michigan government shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision on March 31. “We’ll have a phone call next week and see what they plan to do,” Goodrich said.
“When the case was put on hold, the court ordered the parties to talk to each other within 14 days of Chile’s decision and then jointly tell the court what we are going to do,” he said.
Goodrich argued that the March 31 ruling “definitely” applies to the Michigan lawsuit.
He said, “The laws in Colorado and Michigan are almost verbatim identical, and Michigan itself has said that the laws and cases are almost identical, and whatever would happen in Chile would happen in Michigan.”
The Supreme Court ruled 8–1 in the Chiles case, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson being the sole dissenter.
He argued that the First Amendment has “little significance” where medical regulations are concerned, although the majority opinion stated that the Colorado law targeting medical officers “changes nothing” with respect to free speech precedent.
The majority wrote, “The Constitution does not protect the right of a few to speak freely; it protects the right of all.” “It not only protects popular ideas; it also, in particular, secures the right to express dissent.”
