Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stood alone in an 8-1 Supreme Court ruling, dissenting fiercely against a decision that struck down Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors—what viral headlines falsely claimed was a brutal takedown by her liberal colleague Justice Elena Kagan.
Story Snapshot
- Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on March 31, 2026, in Chiles v. Salazar, invalidating Colorado’s minor conversion therapy ban as a First Amendment violation.
- Justice Jackson delivered a rare solo dissent from the bench, defending states’ power to ban harmful medical practices for children.
- Sensational claims of Kagan “nuking” Jackson are fabricated—no rebuke exists in the opinions or records.
- Ruling prioritizes therapist speech rights over medical regulation, endangering LGBTQ+ youth per medical consensus.
- Impacts 20+ state bans, fueling debates on free speech versus child protection.
Colorado Enacts Controversial Ban in 2019
Colorado passed the Minor Conversion Therapy Law in 2019, prohibiting licensed professionals from offering conversion therapy to minors. The law targets practices aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. Kira Chiles, a faith-based counselor using nonaversive talk therapy, challenged the statute. Lower courts upheld the ban, viewing it as regulation of professional conduct rather than speech. Chiles argued her counseling constituted protected First Amendment expression. This set the stage for Supreme Court review, resolving a circuit split on talk therapy bans.
Supreme Court Delivers 8-1 Ruling
Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion in Chiles v. Salazar on March 31, 2026. The Court held Colorado’s law violated the First Amendment by discriminating based on viewpoint in therapeutic speech. Eight justices, including liberals Kagan and Sotomayor, joined Gorsuch. They distinguished talk therapy as speech, not conduct subject to state bans. The ruling enjoined the law as applied to Chiles’ practice. Observers noted the broad consensus surprised many, signaling strong free speech protections in professional counseling.
Jackson’s Lone Dissent Defends State Authority
Justice Jackson issued a 35-page dissent, read aloud from the bench—a rare move for solo opinions. She argued states hold traditional police powers to regulate harmful medical treatments for minors. Jackson cited medical consensus from groups like the American Psychological Association: conversion therapy lacks efficacy and causes PTSD, depression, and suicidality in youth. She quoted survivors, including one who said it “came close to killing me.” Jackson rejected the majority’s speech framing, insisting licensed therapy constitutes regulable conduct. Common sense aligns with her view: states protect vulnerable children from quackery, much like banning other discredited treatments.
Jackson warned the decision disrupts centuries of state medical oversight. She emphasized minors’ vulnerability, noting studies show amplified harm from shame and stigma. Her isolation from fellow liberals underscores an independent streak, prioritizing evidence-based child safety over expansive speech claims. Conservative values favor parental rights and state protections for kids, making her position resonate despite the lopsided loss.
Sensational Headlines Distort the Facts
Viral conservative media fabricated conflict, claiming Kagan “nuked” or issued a “footnote jab” at Jackson. Credible sources confirm no such criticism exists in opinions or reports. Kagan fully joined the majority without concurring separately. Jackson dissented alone by choice, not rebuke. This aligns with patterns of solo liberal dissents amid a conservative Court majority. Such distortions erode trust in institutions, peddling clickbait over truth—a tactic common sense rejects.
Impacts Ripple Across States and Society
The ruling weakens similar bans in over 20 states, enabling talk-based conversion therapy for minors. LGBTQ+ youth face heightened risks of mental health crises, per expert consensus. Faith groups celebrate free speech and religious liberty victories. Therapists gain leeway but risk liability. Politically, it bolsters conservative First Amendment wins while progressives decry child endangerment. Long-term, it elevates scrutiny on professional speech regulations, potentially shielding misinformation in counseling. Debates intensify on balancing speech, religion, and minor protections.
Sources:
Ms. Magazine – Conversion Therapy Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Dissent in Chiles v. Salazar
Pennsylvania Providers – US Supreme Court Ruling Against Conversion Therapy Ban
Supreme Court Opinion – Chiles v. Salazar No. 24-539
