On December 11th, the U.S. Supreme Court denied hearing a First Amendment challenge to a Washington State law that prohibits licensed therapists from providing conversion therapy to minors. The case, Tingley v. Ferguson, highlights the tension between the state's interest in protecting children from potential harm associated with conversion therapy and the therapists' claim that such regulations infringe upon their constitutional rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. The opposing opinions of Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Brett M. Kavanaugh underscore the divisive nature of the issue and its potential implications for the First Amendment. 

Conversion therapy, also known as reparative or ex-gay therapy, has been widely discredited as ineffective and potentially harmful. Washington State, along with many others, has enacted legislation aimed at protecting minors from undergoing such therapies, making a point of the increased risk of suicide and depression associated with conversion practices. Brian Tingley, a licensed family counselor, challenged the constitutionality of Washington's law, contending that it violated his rights to free speech and religion. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court aligns with the decisions of lower courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lower courts maintained that the state has the authority to regulate the conduct of medical professionals, even when that conduct involves speech. The court's decision emphasizes the notion that states can impose restrictions on speech when it is incidental to regulating professional conduct, particularly in cases where the well-being of minors is at stake. 

The opposing opinions, particularly those of Justice Thomas, argue that the Supreme Court should have granted review to address the question of whether the state can censor counselors who assist minors in accepting their biological sex. Justice Alito emphasizes the national importance of the case, pointing out that similar laws in 20 states and the District of Columbia restrict speech and, therefore, warrant careful inspection.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the challenge to Washington State's conversion therapy ban leaves in place the lower court rulings that uphold the constitutionality of such laws. While the majority opinion prioritizes the state's interest in regulating the conduct of medical professionals to protect minors, the opposing justices underscore the need for the Court to address the potential conflicts between these regulations and the First Amendment. The ongoing debate over conversion therapy bans continues to demonstrate the delicate balance between protecting vulnerable individuals and safeguarding constitutional rights.