Supreme Court takes up challenge to Colorado conversion therapy ban
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to a law in Colorado that bans 'conversion therapy' aimed at young people questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity.
With more than 20 states with similar bans, the court's eventual ruling is likely to have nationwide implications.
The justices took up an appeal brought by Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist, who argued that the restriction violates her free speech rights under the Constitution's First Amendment.
Favored by some religious conservatives, the practice is aimed at encouraging gay or lesbian minors to change their sexual orientations and transgender children to identify as the gender identities assigned to them at birth.
Chiles often has clients who are Christians, some of whom have questions about their sexual orientation and gender identity amid concerns that they are unable to live their lives in accordance with their faith, according to court papers. As such, they seek counseling to suppress unwanted sexual attractions or to resolve conflicts about their gender identity.
"The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors, nor should a counselor be used as a tool to impose the government's biased views on her clients," Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian advocacy group representing Chiles, said in a statement.
Chiles' lawyers cite in part the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling that struck down on free speech grounds a California law that required anti-abortion pregnancy clinics to notify clients about abortion access.
The lawyers argue that the bans have 'devastating real world consequences' including on rare cases of 'detransitioners' — the small proportion of transgender people who change course and wish to identity as the gender they were assigned at birth.
Limiting counseling options communicates to 'countless minors they have no choice but to medically transition,' the lawyers said.
Colorado officials wrote in their brief that the state measure regulates conduct, not speech.
"States have long regulated medical practices to protect patients from harmful professional conduct," Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, said in a statement. "Colorado's law protecting young people from unscientific and cruel gay conversion therapy practices is human, smart, and appropriate.'
A federal judge and the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the state.
The Supreme Court has on several occasions refused to take up challenges to similar conversion therapy bans, most recently in December 2023, when it left a law in Washington state in place. Three conservative justices said at that time they would have taken up the case.
The new case will be argued and decided in the court's next term, which starts in October and ends in June 2026.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bishop's village attacked, 20 slain after recent testimony to Congress on Christian persecution
FIRST ON FOX: A Nigerian bishop has been threatened and his home village murderously attacked after he appealed to lawmakers at a March congressional hearing for the killing of Christians to stop. Bishop Wilfred Anagbe told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview this week that after he went to Washington to testify, four fatal attacks in 10 days by "terrorist Jihadists" had happened in his diocese, the area he is responsible for. Nigeria is one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a Christian, according to NGO Open Doors International's 2025 World Watch List (WWL). Of the 4,476 Christians killed worldwide in WWL's latest reporting period, 3,100 of those who died – 69% – were in Nigeria. Fears Remain This Easter That Christians In Nigeria Are Being 'Wiped Out' By Muslim Extremists Open Doors U.K., added in a statement, "Jihadist violence continues to escalate in Nigeria, and Christians are at particular risk from targeted attacks by Islamic militant groups, including Fulani militants, Boko Haram and ISWAP (Islamic State West Africa Province)." One leader of one of the biggest churches in Africa's most populous nation, using the pseudonym "Pastor Winyadebi" because he's worried about his safety, told Fox News Digital. "It has been attacks upon attacks, religious violence. And we say this because the communities that are attacked are Christian communities." Read On The Fox News App "What they (Islamist militants) want is to be sure that Islam [takes] over every part of these places. … And so they're doing everything to make sure that Christianity is brought down and Islam is [the] established No. 1. They want to make sure that Sharia law (strict Islamic law) has taken over Nigeria," he said. Anagbe's Makurdi Diocese in north-central Nigeria is almost exclusively Christian. But the constant and escalating attacks by Islamist Fulani militants led him to testify at a congressional hearing in March. In April, several foreign embassies in Abuja, Nigeria, warned the bishop of credible high-level official threats: that he would be detained upon arrival in Nigeria from the U.S. and that "something might happen to him." This led to Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., Anagbe's congressional host and chair of the House Africa Subcommittee, to write in a statement: "I am appalled by reports that Bishop Wilfred Anagbe and Father Remigius Ihyula (who testified alongside Bishop Anagbe) are facing threats—allegedly from Nigerian government sources and affiliated organizations—because of the Bishop's testimony before Congress detailing violence in Nigeria's Benue State. They reflect a troubling pattern of retaliation linked to testimony before Congress on religious freedom abuses in Nigeria." Christians Increasingly Persecuted Worldwide As 'Modern And Historical Factors Converge' The U.S. Mission in Nigeria on April 10 posted on X calling for the bishop's "right to speak freely without fear of retribution or retaliation," declaring that intimidation and threats had been made "because of their March 12 testimony." Then the attacks, larger and more frequent than before, started, with four attacks between May 23 and June 1. Anagbe told Fox News Digital that "what has been happening in my village and diocese is nothing short of terror attacks on innocent villagers in order to seize their lands and occupy." "On the 23rd [of] May, one of my priests, Father Solomon Atongo, was shot in the leg by these terrorists and almost lost his life. On the 25th of May, my village, Aondona, was attacked for hours, leaving over 20 people dead, scores injured and thousands now displaced and living in makeshift camps," he said. "On the 1st of June, terror was unleashed on Naka town, with many killed and displaced," Anagbe continued. "This attack was so intense that even those earlier displaced and taking refuge in a nearby school were not spared. All over Nigeria, these terrorists are going about on a jihad and conquering territories and renaming them accordingly." "I have been speaking about this genocide for some years now, but whereas in the past some others saw my advocacy with the political lens, today almost everyone in Nigeria has seen the truth for what it is, especially after my testimony in the U.S. Congress." The bishop ended the interview with a plea: "The world has a lot to do. First of all, the world must learn from past mistakes, the Holocaust and most recently the Rwandan genocide. In both cases, the world hid its face in the sand like an ostrich. If the world does not rise up now to put a stop to the atrocities orchestrated in the name of being politically correct, it may wake up one day to casualties that make the Rwandan genocide a child's play. Keeping quiet would be to promote the genocide or ethnic cleansing in Nigeria." While the Nigerian government did not respond to a Fox News Digital request for comment, the Catholic Herald reported that the Nigerian Foreign Ministry had contacted the U.S. regarding the bishop's testimony, noting that "any reports of threats or intimidation against religious leaders would be investigated and appropriate actions would be taken."Original article source: Bishop's village attacked, 20 slain after recent testimony to Congress on Christian persecution
The Hill
44 minutes ago
- The Hill
DOGE's Supreme Court victory is a huge loss for Americans' privacy
The six justices comprising the far-right majority on the Supreme Court just radically endorsed a sweeping intrusion into the privacy of hundreds of millions of Americans by the Department of Government Efficiency or 'DOGE,' without so much as the pretense of a justification. One must seriously wonder what their endgame really is, because it's not about upholding the law. With the exception of a reference to the Treasury Department, the Constitution says nothing about federal agencies. Congress creates them pursuant to its Article I powers to legislate. But Congress did not pass any legislation creating the Department of Government Efficiency. It was declared into existence by President Trump via executive order when he took office in January. What's more, for the real federal agencies that Congress actually creates, Article II of the Constitution mandates that their officers — the agency heads or 'secretaries' — must be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. The outgoing 'head' of DOGE, Elon Musk, was neither. Congressionally created agency heads are also confined to the job descriptions established under a governing statute for each particular agency. For DOGE, Trump directed the actual federal agencies to create 'DOGE Teams' to 'coordinate their work' with Musk and to 'advise their respective Agency Heads on implementing the President's DOGE Agenda.' This kind of uber-power over agencies is constitutionally unprecedented. The point of mandating Senate confirmation of agency heads is of course to enable elected representatives of the people to gather information about a candidate's qualifications and possible disqualifying characteristics, such as conflicts of interest that would make it difficult or impossible for an officer to neutrally exercise the duties of their office. According to an April report from Senate Democrats, Musk and his companies faced upwards of $2.37 billion in legal liability stemming from 65 pending or potential federal investigations, regulations and litigation across 11 agencies relating to his companies — including Tesla, SpaceX and Neuralink. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reported in February that Musk would simply 'excuse himself' if a conflict of interest arose. That cynical strategy failed. In firing tens of thousands of federal employees, including over a dozen inspectors general, Musk managed to muck around with numerous agencies that regulate him — such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is now nearly defunct, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This is grossly inappropriate self-dealing. A lawsuit filed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees complained that Musk's DOGE team members were violating a slew of federal laws, including the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Social Security Act, the Tax Revenue Act of 1976 and the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014. The Privacy Act protects citizens' sensitive data unless government access is 'for a necessary and proper purpose' and mandates that 'adequate safeguards' be in place 'to prevent misuses of this information.' Information cannot even be shared between agencies without the consent of the people whose personal data is implicated. In April, a federal judge in Maryland agreed that Trump's unfettered data-collection effort was legally dubious, finding that the pretense that it was necessary to detect 'fraud, waste and abuse' was not enough to overcome the myriad statutory protections for individual Americans' private data. The judge issued an order temporarily enjoining DOGE from harvesting unlimited amounts of information from the Social Security Administration — which may include birth dates, addresses, Social Security numbers, drivers' license numbers, tax return information, bank account information, credit card numbers, employment and wage histories, citizenship and immigration records, and detailed medical records. Trump's executive order requires agencies to give the DOGE teams 'full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.' The lawsuit is thus a standoff between Trump's roving DOGE snoops and the rule of law itself. In a terse order issued without full briefing or oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts — on behalf of the six conservative justices in the majority — sided with DOGE, reversing the district court's temporary injunction and allowing Musk's minions to access a treasure trove of personal data while the district court's decision is on appeal. Normally, when a district court issues an order, that order holds while it is appealed (absent some finding of exceptional circumstances). In this case, DOGE was positioned to possibly get what it wants down the line, either from the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit or from the Supreme Court in due course, while the case makes its way through the system. In the meantime, the status quo of keeping statutory protections in place for regular Americans would stand — just like it has under every president before Trump. Instead, Roberts found that it is DOGE — not the American people — that would irreparably suffer if the legal questions are given time to percolate on appeal. DOGE gets the goods immediately. If the plaintiffs manage to secure a ruling affirming the district court on appeal many months from now, thus undoing the Supreme Court's stay, the damage will already have been done. The data is already breached. There is no longer a remedy. To justify his decision, Roberts properly cited the four-part test for granting a temporary stay of an injunction: Trump must show that he will likely win under the various federal laws that otherwise protect the data, that he'd be irreparably damaged without a stay, that the stay will not 'substantially injure' other parties (like Americans who want their personal data to remain secure) and that a stay is in the broader public interest. The wrinkle is that Roberts didn't bother to actually analyze any of these factors. He just summarily concluded they were satisfied. Too bad for the plaintiffs — and too bad for the American people, whose personal data is now in the hands of DOGE and anyone else it cares to share it with. Roberts simply reasoned that the DOGE team must get access to the records 'for those members to do their work.' In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that 'the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.' The majority nonetheless is 'jettisoning careful judicial decision-making and creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process.' Since the landmark 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court's job has included holding the other branches of government accountable to federal statutes. By baldly eschewing its constitutional role while hiding behind a veneer of legitimacy, today's conservative majority is much like DOGE, the entity it put above the law: a fake. Kimberly Wehle is author of the book 'Pardon Power: How the Pardon System Works — and Why.'
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Can and Should Fire Fed Boss Over Economy
Federal Reserve kingpin Jerome Powell is busy doing what he does best: sabotaging a prosperous economy so that President Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans lose popularity. Hes also ignoring Trump, whom voters will judge for the economys performance and whom the Constitution says runs the executive branch of which the Fed is a part. This is old hat for Powell, who, after being installed by Trump in 2018, got straight to work undermining his bosss economic recovery. You may recall that one of the circumstances that brought an unusual candidate like Trump to power in 2016 was the preceding decade of economic malaise. The Obama years averaged just 2.1% annual growth - the most lethargic economic recovery since World War II. It was fashionable among establishment economists to say that growth above this level, especially the 4.3% average annual growth of the Reagan boom, was simply unobtainable. Big-government economists - practically a redundant phrase today - called it "secular stagnation." Enter Trump. Upon taking office, he immediately began deregulating the U.S. economy, particularly in the energy sector. He worked with Congress to lower the corporate tax rate from 35%, which was nearly the highest among advanced economies, to a more competitive 21%. He also cut personal income taxes for every income bracket, which meant lower taxes for the majority of small business owners who pull company income and taxes onto their personal tax returns. Trump also incentivized corporations to bring home capital they held overseas. Apple alone said it would bring home a majority of its roughly $252 billion in offshore reserves, paying a one-time tax of $38 billion. The results for the broader economy were impressive. Annualized GDP growth in the quarter Trump took office was 2.0%. By the end of the year, it had jumped to 4.6%. Unemployment dropped from 4.7% to 4.0%. Manufacturing jobs, which totaled nearly 17 million when NAFTA was enacted in 1994 and globalization ensued, had fallen to 12.3 million when Trump took office. Within a year, the sector saw modest improvement to 12.5 million jobs. Oil production increased from 8.9 million to 10 million barrels per day during that year. (It would reach 13 million later in Trumps first term.) But Powell was having none of it. Like most of his predecessors and colleagues at the Federal Reserve, Powell adheres to the discredited Keynesian school of economics, which holds that the government should play a preponderant role in the economy, managing demand through government spending. Keynesians distrust free markets, free people, and the supply side of the economy that produces tangible goods. They believe economic growth leads inevitably to inflation, despite repeated economic expansions, including most notably Reagans, in which the expansion of the private-sector economy leads to more goods and services produced and stable prices. In 2018, Powell saw looming inflation where there was none and tightened monetary policy for the first time since 2008. When Trump was elected in 2016, the federal funds effective rate stood at 0.41%. Despite no inflation, the Fed began a relentless cycle of rate increases that reached 2.2% in time for the 2018 midterm elections, when Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives to Democrats, leading eventually to Trumps impeachment. Beyond being a Keynesian, Powell is also a fool. Trumps first term isnt the only time he saw inflation where there was none, or failed to see inflation when it was obvious. During the Biden administration, long after the pandemic had peaked, Powell enabled continued federal spending at crisis levels despite the lack of a crisis. Bidens Treasury Department issued bonds to pay for unprecedented deficits in excess of $1.5 trillion. This only worked because Powell had the Fed buy the bonds with dollars created out of thin air. He also tried to goose the Biden economy by buying mortgages from banks immediately after they were issued. The Feds balance sheet of debt it owned grew from $7.4 trillion when Biden took office to a peak of $10 trillion just over a year later. Powell also kept interest rates near zero even as inflation caused by his dilution of the dollar skyrocketed. Inflation peaked at over 9% in 2022, and the cumulative inflation of the Biden years and Powells debasement of the currency eliminated more than 20% of Americans purchasing power. Powell and his establishment friends had assured Americans that inflation was "transient" when it wasnt. Powell was eventually forced to acknowledge inflation and reluctantly began hiking interest rates to above 5%. He then started lowering them just before the 2024 election in an effort to help Democrats keep the White House. But the easing stopped when Trump took office. Even as central banks in Europe have cut rates due to the lack of inflation, Powell and his clique at the Fed have refused to do so, keeping them at sustained heights not seen in 20 years. Trump has repeatedly pressured Powell to lower rates. He did so again on June 6 when the government reported that job growth had moderated and revised downward the job growth reported in previous months. If a Republican president pressuring Powell could work, it would have worked by now. Instead, Trump will have to fire Powell and replace him with a pro-private-sector-growth banker who takes guidance from the president. Powell and many establishment pooh-bahs think such a move would be illegal. After Trumps reelection, Powell vowednot to resign and said his termination is "not permitted under the law." In fact, the Federal Reserve Act does allow Powells removal "for cause," and grotesque incompetence and political conniving ought both to qualify. But in fact, the whole idea of an "independent" Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, and Trump should fire Powell not only to save the economic recovery but to restore the power of the presidency and recognize the reality that the American people hold the president responsible for economic performance. If he is on the hook to perform, he must control the tools to do so. Article II of the Constitution states plainly, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." In the Federalist Papers #70, Alexander Hamilton explained the necessity of the strong executive created by the then-draft Constitution to skeptics: "A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government." Its as though Hamilton could foresee Powell and the Fed of 2025. There should be no doubt that the Framers of the Constitution intended the president to have the power to fire anyone as part of his responsibility to supervise the unitary executive branch. What was true in 1789 is still true today: any schmuck in Washington knows no bureaucrat will pay you much attention unless you might plausibly take away his job or budget. Creating a person beyond the reach of the president in the executive branch would be like creating an unelected politburo in Congress to handle certain issues, or a special court completely independent from the Supreme Court to handle certain legal cases. Voters would see such actions as obviously unconstitutional attempts to weaken those pillars of democracy. So too is a theoretically independent Fed - an essentially fascist construct that purports to put monetary policy beyond the reach of the president, weakening the office held by the only man who represents all of the American people. In recent years, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the president has the right to fire executive branch officials. It did so again last month in allowing Trump to dismiss members of supposedly independent federal agencies. There was, however, a glitch. The unsigned order stated that: "The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States." This red herring in the courts order implied its recognition of the presidents power to fire might not extend to the Fed. In reality, there is nothing "quasi-private" about an organization that sets interest rates and decides how many dollars to print. Furthermore, the court should take note of another "distinct historical tradition" that began in Franklin Roosevelts administration of pondering packing the court with new justices when its rulings are at odds with the wishes of administrations and Congresses. Its better to stick with what the Constitution means and says lest a flexible view of the Framers intent turn around and bite the court or Congress in their asses. Furthermore, make-believe about an independent Federal Reserve was more believable when Fed chairmen took cues from presidents regardless of their political party. More recently, Fed bosses have joined the rest of the Deep State in seeking to help Democrats and harm Republicans. Firing Powell and dispensing with the fiction of his unfireability will be good for the economy, good for the presidency, and good for democracy. Christian Whiton was a senior advisor at the State Department in the second Bush and first Trump administrations and served as an adviser to the secretary of state and other senior officials about public affairs and East Asia matters. He is a senior fellow at the Center for the National Interest and a principal at Rockies Aria LLC, a public affairs and government relations firm.
