Editorial: A victory for the First Amendment at the high court

Las Vegas Review-Journal, Las Vegas Review-Journal on Apr 1, 2026

Published in Op Eds

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

Progressives wasted no time characterizing the Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday on “conversion therapy” as an attack on the LGBTQ community. It is no such thing, representing instead a victory for the First Amendment.

The justices ruled 8-1 in favor of a religious counselor who challenged a 2019 Colorado law banning attempts to “change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” The decision doesn’t technically strike down the statute, but the case will now return to the appeals court, where it “will almost certainly be struck down,” CNN reported.

Colorado argued that states have the right to regulate the medical industry as a means of promoting consumer health and safety. But Kathy Chiles, a licensed counselor who challenged the law, argued that the statute violated her right to free speech by restricting what she may say in a therapy session.

During oral arguments, some justices noted that the law worked only one way, barring therapists from attempting to “change” gay or transgender youth, while allowing therapists to “affirm” a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. That proved to be a pivotal distinction, leading two of the liberal justices to join the majority. “Because the state has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, “the constitutional issue is straightforward.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion was a robust defense of free speech.

“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same.” He continued: “The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. … The Constitution does not protect the right of some to speak freely; it protects the right of all. It safeguards not only popular ideas; it secures, even and especially, the right to voice dissenting views.”

This case wasn’t about whether “conversion therapy” is a wise practice. It was instead about whether the government can demand that therapists either promote a certain viewpoint or face sanctions for expressing a contrary perspective. The First Amendment is clear on this. The fact that this was an 8-1 decision speaks volumes.