The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons files an Amicus Brief in the Supreme Court in Support of the Right to Conversion Therapy

TUCSON, Ariz., June 16, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) filed its amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on June 12 against a Colorado ban on conversion therapy for minors, in Chiles v. Salazar (No. 24-539). In this case, a therapist challenges the Colorado law, similar to bans in roughly half the states, that prevents her from counseling in support of a patient's gender, while allowing transgender conversion advice.
Colorado and most blue states censor therapists from helping teenagers overcome gender dysphoria and same-sex attractions. But therapists are permitted to encourage transgender transitions and homosexuality, the brief states.
'This is a blatant content-based discrimination by government in violation of the First Amendment,' observes AAPS General Counsel Andrew Schlafly. 'Government cannot lawfully pick sides with viewpoint censorship.'
At issue before the Supreme Court is not whether conversion therapy, which is better called gender support therapy, is beneficial to most people. Instead, the issue is whether there is a free-speech right of licensed counselors to provide such talk therapy to patients, the brief explains.
'Physicians, therapists, and other caregivers are professionals not to be censored and controlled. They must retain First Amendment freedom of speech rights after licensure which they properly enjoyed prior to licensure,' the brief argues.
AAPS quotes Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent from a Court decision not to review a challenge to a similar Washington State law. Justice Thomas wrote in Tingley v. Ferguson (2023) that the State allows counseling of 'minors about gender dysphoria, but only if they convey the state-approved message of encouraging minors to explore their gender identities.'
'Expressing any other message is forbidden—even if the counselor's clients ask for help to accept their biological sex. That is viewpoint-based and content-based discrimination in its purest form,' Justice Thomas added.
AAPS in its amicus brief urged the Court to invalidate Colorado's ban on conversion therapy. This would also negate similar laws in about half the country.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties since 1943.
Contact: Andrew Schlafly, (908) 719-8608, [email protected], or Jane M. Orient, M.D., (520) 323-3110, [email protected]
Disclaimer: The above press release comes to you under an arrangement with GlobeNewswire. Business Upturn takes no editorial responsibility for the same.
Ahmedabad Plane Crash

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

USA Today

5 hours ago

• USA Today

Judge denies government attempt to keep Abrego Garcia in detention; hearing set on release

A federal judge in Tennessee has ruled that a Salvadoran migrant at the heart of the debate over President Donald Trump's border security policies must be released from jail while he awaits trial on human smuggling charges. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes ruled in Nashville June 22 that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 29, cannot remain in detention, denying the federal government's request. The judge set a June 25 hearing in Nashville to determine the conditions of Abrego Garcia's release. Abrego Garcia was thrust into the national spotlight when the Trump administration mistakenly deported him to El Salvador in March in violation of a court order. Abrego Garcia, a sheet metal worker and father of three who had lived in Maryland for a decade before he was deported, has pleaded not guilty to charges he transported undocumented immigrants for financial gain. Prosecutors had argued that Abrego Garcia is a member of the violent gang MS-13 and could flee or intimidate other witnesses if he is released while awaiting trial. Abrego Garcia denies he is a member of the gang and had contended that the charges don't justify holding him in jail. Abrego Garcia's deportation in March turned him into a key player in the debate over Trump's hardline immigration policy. Government lawyers acknowledged in court records that he had been erroneously deported – an 'administrative error' was the official explanation – even though an immigration judge's court order had barred his deportation back to native land. A federal judge in Maryland ordered the administration to facilitate his return. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling, but officials resisted bringing him back until he was indicted in May. The human smuggling charges are tied to a traffic stop in Tennessee in 2022. Police say Abrego Garcia was driving a Chevrolet Suburban with nine other passengers when he was pulled over for speeding on Interstate 40 about 80 miles east of Nashville. Police questioned Abrego Garcia and his passengers but let them go without filing any charges. A federal grand jury in Nashville indicted Abrego Garcia on the human smuggling charges on May 21 while he was still being held in a prison in El Salvador. The indictment alleges that, from 2016 through 2025, Abrego Garcia and other unnamed people conspired to bring undocumented migrants into the United States from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador and elsewhere, passing through Mexico before crossing into Texas. Prosecutors say Abrego Garcia's role in the conspiracy was typically transporting people once they were within the United States, typically picking them up in the Houston area. If convicted, Abrego Garcia could face up to 10 years in prison for each person transported. Prosecutors allege he made more than 100 trips. Following his indictment, the Trump administration flew Abrego Garcia back to the United States to face the charges even though it had insisted for weeks that it had no authority to bring him back. Follow Michael Collins on X @mcollinsNEWS.

Yahoo

7 hours ago

• Yahoo

US Supreme Court curbs discrimination claims over lost retiree benefits

By Daniel Wiessner (Reuters) -Retirees cannot sue their former employers for disability discrimination after leaving their jobs, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Friday in a ruling against a disabled former Florida firefighter that could make it harder to bring lawsuits seeking to restore lost retiree benefits. The ruling upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit by Karyn Stanley, who had worked as a firefighter in Sanford, that accused the city of discriminating against her by ending a health insurance subsidy for retirees. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the ruling, wrote that only job applicants and current employees are "qualified individuals" covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, a landmark federal law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. "In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination. And the statute also tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination," Gorsuch wrote. Gorsuch was joined by the court's five other conservative justices and liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson penned separate dissenting opinions. While Stanley worked for Sanford, located in the suburbs of Orlando, the city changed its policy to limit health insurance coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley retired from her job after two decades because her Parkinson's disease had made it impossible for her to work, according to court filings. She sued the city in 2020, claiming it discriminated against workers who retired early because of a disability by giving them a smaller healthcare subsidy than employees who retired after 25 years of service. The city in court filings has said its policy was lawful and necessary to contain costs related to employee benefits. Sanford covers insurance costs for workers who retire after 25 years of service until they turn 65, and had previously done so for employees who retired due to a disability regardless of how long they worked for the city. While Stanley worked for the city, it changed its policy to limit coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley was 47 when she retired. Friday's decision will help reduce the legal risks that employers face when they change or terminate retirement benefits, according to Caroline Pieper, a Chicago-based lawyer with the firm Seyfarth Shaw, which represents employers. "While there are certainly other considerations ... this case should give employers more comfort under the ADA when they modify or reduce post-employment offerings," Pieper said, referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Friday's ruling affirmed decisions by a judge in Florida and the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had dismissed Stanley's lawsuit.

9 hours ago

What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018. She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015.