Host: [00:00:00] Welcome to Discourse, where we cut through the noise and make sense of the chaos. I'm your host, Wayne Unger. I'm a law professor and former Silicon Valley nerd, and I've spent years breaking down complex topics into digestible takeaways. And on this podcast, we'll take a deep dive into the pressing issues shaping our world in law, politics, technology, business, and more.

No echo chambers, no corporate influence, just thoughtful analysis and respectful civic dialogue. Because understanding different perspectives isn't just important, it's necessary. Let's get started.

Alrighty, welcome back to discourse. I'm your host Wayne Unger, and we are recording this at 5 p. m. on Tuesday, March 11th. And I note. Things may have changed since on today's docket. We have two big stories to talk about. The first one is with the executive branch and the Trump administration revoking the green card of a student at Columbia University.

And then the second one is with the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court's decision to [00:01:00]hear a case next term related to conversion therapy. So first, let's start with the executive branch. A judge has blocked the deportation of a pro Palestinian activist arrested by ICE over the weekend, at least for now.

There's a court hearing scheduled for Mahmoud Khalil tomorrow. President Trump is weighing in on that matter, and we've got Michael George back with us here in Studio 57 to tell us more. Michael, good morning to you. What's the latest? Well, Errol, good morning. CBS News has confirmed that Mahmoud Khalil is now in federal custody in Louisiana.

Now for a little bit of background on Khalil Khalil is a lawful United States resident who was a graduate student at Columbia until December. Now he was detained as you heard there over the weekend by federal immigration agents in New York, and now he is sitting in detention in Louisiana. He faces the possible deportation because, according to President Trump and his administration, [00:02:00] Khalil helped lead the protests at Columbia University with respect to the war in Gaza.

 The Trump administration has revoked his green card, so his lawful permanent residency here in the United States. Typically, according to the Associated Press, the government has to meet a higher bar to expel a person who has permanent residency here in the United States, like showing somebody has been convicted of a serious crime.

Khalil was born in Syria to Palestinian parents, and he entered the United States to attend Columbia in 2022. He subsequently got married to an American citizen. Khalil emerged as one of the most visible activists in large protests at Columbia last year. He served as a mediator on behalf of the pro Palestinian activists and Muslim students.

And that role put him in direct touch with university leaders and the press. And of course he drew attention from pro Israel activists who in recent weeks called on the Trump administration to deport him. All of that according to the [00:03:00] Associated Press. You might remember that in 2024, there was a series of occupation protests by pro Palestine students at Columbia University in New York City.

And this was in response to the broader conflict in Gaza. The protests began on April 17th, 2024, when pro Palestinian students established an encampment of approximately 50 tents on a university campus. They demanded the university divest from Israel.

The first encampment was dismantled when University President authorized the NYPD to enter the campus on April 18th and conduct mass arrests. However, a new encampment was built the next day, and the administration then entered into negotiations with the protesters, which failed days later and resulted in the suspension of the student protesters.

The next day after that. Protesters broke into and occupied Hamilton [00:04:00] Hall, which led to this second NYPD raid and the arrest of more than 100 protesters inside Hamilton Hall. This resulted, of course, in the full dismantling of the camp. The arrest marked the first time that Columbia University allowed police to suppress campus protests since the 1968 demonstrations against the Vietnam War.  

There are a few things to recognize here with the protests at Columbia University. First, Columbia University, as we know, is a private institution, meaning that Its campus is private property, so they do have the right to exclude individuals from their private property. 

On the free speech part, so it's generally under the First Amendment. Government cannot retaliate against you for exercising your civil right, and specifically your civil right to free speech under the First Amendment.

Any retaliation would be a violation of the First Amendment. And [00:05:00] this certainly seems, at least to me, that his revocation of his green card is a form of retaliation. The Trump administration not liking what he said and what he did, and again that pro Palestinian protest, that here the Trump administration has moved towards silencing those type of protests.

But there's also another constitutional issue here worth mentioning. His green card is an interest. You can say it's a liberty interest or perhaps even a property interest that's protected by the due process clause. Before that green card was revoked, he is entitled to some level of due process before The administration takes that away from him.

 This is because the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment applies to all persons regardless of citizenship status. To prevail on a procedural due process claim, a court must [00:06:00] analyze whether, number one, is there a cognizable property or liberty interest to which the due process protection was applicable.

And that would be the green card here. And two, whether the plaintiff received the proper amount of due process before the deprivation occurred. Here, Khalil did not receive any due process, at least according to what's in the public domain. regarding what happened to him. Due process can in some cases come after a deprivation, but those are unique circumstances in which the deprivation must occur in cases of say an emergency, and then you're entitled to due process.

That's not what we have here. There is no evidence that Khalil. was an imminent threat to the health and safety of anyone else, for that matter. green cards in general can be conditionally issued, and I don't know whether his green card had any conditions attached to it.  

I will say that the protesters at [00:07:00] Columbia certainly could have violated a slew of other laws. For example, they were on private property. They also broke into and occupied Hamilton Hall. But those crimes are all at the state level. Those aren't federal crimes, to my knowledge at least.

There is no federal crime related to that. So the state prosecutors have to bring those cases against those protesters, if they committed a crime in association with their protest. And here's the thing that we often forget. While you have a right to free speech, that does not give you a right to break other generally applicable laws.

So you may have a right to free speech, and you may want to send a message by, say, burning down a building, but even though that conduct is symbolic of a message. That conduct is still impermissible, and so here we have Khalil and a bunch of other protesters who protested at Columbia University [00:08:00] a message that the Trump administration, apparently, passionately disagrees with.

So regardless of your opinion on the message itself, The message that these Columbia protesters were trying to communicate and specifically Khalil in leading those protests, 

Some may disagree with the message of those Columbia protesters. Some may disagree with Khalil in particular. But here's the thing to note. What I am commenting on here is Only the message insofar as it's a message that the Trump administration disagrees with and the Trump administration being a government actor cannot discriminate against particular subject matters or the substance of Protests that is plainly unconstitutional in the First Amendment what I'm highlighting here is That I want to make sure I emphasize is the constitutional violations, or at least the potential constitutional violations, with respect to free [00:09:00] speech.

Regardless of what you feel about the message, the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech. You may disagree with the protest's message, but nonetheless you're still protected.

You may disagree with the ultimate message of a protest. For example, Black Lives Matter. We know that there's a portion of the population who disagrees with the Black Lives Matter message. And at the same time, on the other side of the spectrum, we have neo Nazis parading around various cities in the United States.

They have a message that another portion of the United States disagrees with. Here's the thing. The First Amendment still protects both of them. You may not like the message that somebody is protesting. Okay, you have every right to believe and feel that way, but nonetheless, the First Amendment still protects the dissemination of that message.

It still protects the [00:10:00] protest. And the same is applicable here. with Columbia University. Here, you may disagree with the Columbia protesters in their kind of anti Israel, you must divest protest message that they were trying to send to Columbia. You may disagree with that, and you have every right to do so.

You have every freedom of belief and freedom of thought to do so. But nonetheless, for a government actor to take a retaliatory action against a protester for the substance of the message. Is blatantly unconstitutional and that should concern us all regardless of where we feel On the substance regardless of where we stand on the substance of the message It should concern us all because in this particular case if you voice a message that the trump administration disagrees with they could wield the power of the federal government to either silence the message that they don't like or chill the speech from occurring in the first place. And [00:11:00] that is the constitutional violation. An emerging theme on my podcast episodes seem to be that regardless of where you stand, In the constitution and you respect the rights that are enshrined by the Bill of Rights 

and all of the subsequent amendments to the United States Constitution, then this should be a concern because it's an attack on one of those rights. For those individuals who might, for example, really believe strongly in the Second Amendment, and what the court, what the Supreme Court has said about the Second Amendment and your Second Amendment rights, if you parade around the Second Amendment you also should parade around the other individual rights and liberties that the Constitution protects. We can't allow an infringement upon one constitutional right or liberty, but at the same time, say, well hang on, this right over here cannot be infringed.

That is speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

So here's [00:12:00] my point with this. That if you're a constitutionalist, if you respect and give high regard to the United States Constitution, including all of the individual rights and liberties that it protects, then you can't pick and choose between those individual rights and liberties. If you believe in the second amendment and you believe strongly in the second amendment, well, you should also be concerned when the first amendment is under attack and vice versa.

When the first amendment, if you strongly believe in it and you Exercise your First Amendment rights. Well, when another right, like the Second Amendment, is under attack, you, too, should also be concerned. That is what we should be paying attention to here. Retaliatory actions by the federal government are impermissible when those retaliatory actions are taken out against a message that the federal government doesn't like.  

[00:13:00] Thank you 

Host: Switching gears over to the Supreme Court, breaking news the other day, the Supreme Court has granted cert, which means they've agreed to hear a case regarding laws that prohibit conversion therapy aimed at LGBTQ youth.

The honor of all the chief justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oh, yay. Oh, yay. Oh, yay. All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court.

What you heard there is the standard opening for the Supreme Court. As I mentioned, the Supreme Court of the United States granted cert, which means they agreed to hear a case regarding Laws that prohibit conversion therapy.

By way of background, conversion therapy is a form of therapy that has [00:14:00] generally been, one, prohibited, and two, admonished. Given its ineffectiveness and danger that it poses on LGBTQ youth, more than 20 states in recent years have enacted laws that prohibit the practice.

This case that will go before the Supreme Court asks whether the state bans on conversion therapy. Violate the free speech rights of therapists. In this case, this case is called Chiles vs. Salazar, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the therapist, Kaylee Chiles. 

She's the one that brought the free speech and free exercise claims, stating that her inability To deliver conversion therapy infringes on her rights as a therapist on her free speech rights as a therapist Now the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the conversion therapy ban is sufficiently supported by evidence of the harms of conversion [00:15:00] therapy.

And as a part of the state's efforts to regulate the healthcare profession, and that the law primarily targets the therapist's conduct, not their speech, we do not have an infringement on the First Amendment, or we do not have an unconstitutional law under the First Amendment. Now, this case illustrates the incongruency of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on commercial and professional speech, specifically in the healthcare context.

now turning to the bill itself, so what does the bill actually say? Well, according to the Colorado State Legislature, their summary, it says, physicians, and specifically mental health care providers, well, conversion therapy for minors is prohibited. The Act prohibits a licensed physician specializing in psychiatry or a licensed, certified, or registered mental health care provider from engaging in conversion therapy with a patient under the age of 18 years.[00:16:00]

A licensee who engages in those practices is subject to disciplinary action by the appropriate licensing board. And conversion therapy means, according to the text of the bill, efforts to change an individual's sexual orientation, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings towards individuals of the same sex.

So you ask many First Amendment scholars across the country, and we generally say there's mixed messages coming from this court on what regulations, if any, can a government make against commercial and professional speech. 

Now according to the brief that the plaintiff Kylie Chile's the therapist filed in this case She is a licensed counselor who helps people by talking to them literally a therapist and she is a practicing Christian She believes [00:17:00] that people flourish when they live their life Consistently with God's design including their biological sex many of her clients seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith is And their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and their desires.

That is what she wrote in her brief to the United States Supreme Court. But the Tenth Circuit upheld the ban as a regulation of her conduct, not the speech. Be it that, government is allowed to regulate the conduct in various professions. Case in point, abortion. Abortion bans are a regulation of conduct.

It's a regulation of the procedure itself. And so if we equate the regulation of a procedure to therapy, well then we have that same thing here according to the Tenth Circuit. So for this part of the [00:18:00] episode, I'm going to break down the arguments on both sides, Colorado's argument as well as the therapist's argument.

Now keep in mind, these are the arguments that they filed with the court. So they have already made these arguments with the United States Supreme Court. But before I get into their specific arguments, perhaps it's worthwhile to discuss what the First Amendment standards are.

Because we have had, time and time again, many First Amendment cases that have worked their way up to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court has been fairly clear regarding some of the standards, and then not so clear regarding some other standards. So, first, as a preliminary matter, if government seeks to regulate speech, if it's regulating that speech based on the subject matter, then the government must prove that the law that is being challenged is constitutional. And they have to do that at a very high standard called strict scrutiny. [00:19:00] Strict scrutiny requires That the government show, one, the challenged government action, typically a law, is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

This is typically a very hard burden for the government to meet. It's not impossible, it's just a difficult burden. In fact, it's one of the highest levels of scrutiny that a court can deploy on a question or on a case before it. If it's a subject neutral restriction, such as a time, place, or manner restriction, where, for example, government says, well, you cannot place a sign on the street corner, such that it blocks the view of any drivers from pedestrians who could be, of course, injured.

If they are hit by a driver. That type of regulation, while it impacts speech, be it that you don't have the ability to put up a sign on that street corner. That is a [00:20:00] subject neutral restriction where here we're just regulating the place in which the speech can occur. And when it's a time, place, or manner restriction just like that, it gets what's called intermediate scrutiny.

Intermediate scrutiny requires the government to show that the law is substantially related to an important government interest. So it is a step below strict scrutiny. But nonetheless, a heightened level of scrutiny that the government must meet in order to justify its government action, again, typically that's a law.  

For decades, there's been this back and forth on whether a government action is actually seeking to regulate speech or whether it's seeking to regulate conduct. Because if it's seeking to regulate conduct, then it may not be subject to the level of judicial review. That the speech regulation would get against strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny, depending on the type of regulation at issue.

What is [00:21:00] not as clear from the United States Supreme Court is the standards that the court should apply to commercial conduct and commercial speech, and more specifically, professional conduct and professional speech. Generally speaking, we know and we accept that government can regulate professional conduct.

So, for example, A government may pass a law that prohibits certain medical procedures in the healthcare space. Furthermore, government may issue guidance or requirements for certain professions. For example, lawyers have a duty of candor to a tribunal. They must speak the truth to a court. Now that duty of candor is a conduct regulation, meaning that the lawyer cannot conduct himself or herself in such a way that is dishonest before court.

Now the state of Colorado argues that the conversion therapy ban is a form [00:22:00] of conduct regulation, and it's meant to protect patients from substandard care in the world of therapy, even when that regulation incidentally burdens speech. Colorado recognizes that there is a level of burdening onto speech here, but it claims that it is an incidental burden.

And when we have a government regulation that is only an incidental burden, Then it may not be subject to First Amendment scrutiny, meaning it may not be subject to that strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny standards that I previously mentioned. The state of Colorado, in their brief to the United States Supreme Court, summarized the Court of Appeals decision.

It said, As the Court of Appeals acknowledged, when speech is uttered by professionals, we may not treat it differently from speech uttered by laypersons unless it falls within one of the two contexts in which the court has afforded a lesser level of protection. One of those circumstances lies at the [00:23:00] center of this case.

States may regulate professional conduct Even when that conduct incidentally involves speech. So let's look at a classic case in the medical profession for a second. Healthcare professionals can be held liable for failing to warn their patients of certain risks or for inaccurately describing a diagnosis or the available treatments along with their risks and benefits.

Here, we have government imposed standards on medical professionals with respect to what they must disclose to a patient. That is a regulation on Conduct, how that medical professional conducts himself or herself in the practice of medicine while incidentally burdening speech. Here, the government regulation or the government mandate that you must disclose Certain risks about procedures and benefits of those procedures.

So a doctor's failure to warn, or [00:24:00] a doctor's failure to describe the risks and the benefits, or inaccurately describing a diagnosis, well, those are things that the doctor says. That's speech, but we generally consider it to be a conduct regulation because we are saying that as a medical professional, you must conduct yourself in a way that discloses the risks, that accurately describes a diagnosis, et cetera.  

In the therapy context, that medical care is given in the form of talk therapy. By banning a particular type of therapy, that is again a regulation of conduct according to Colorado, not a regulation of speech. Just because the profession is heavily reliant on speech does not suddenly transform this into a speech regulation, wherein other professions it would without question be considered a conduct regulation. 

That means the First Amendment should not even apply here, and the law should [00:25:00] be reviewed under a standard level of judicial review, which is generally just rational basis review. But put that aside for a second. This distinction between a conduct and a speech regulation In the context of professional speech and professional conduct, the challenger of this conversion therapy ban, the therapist argues that Colorado's prohibition on conversion therapy is what's called a viewpoint based censorship, and it has damaging effects on the practice of therapy.

To go into greater detail, The therapist argues that Colorado disagrees with the therapist's belief on gender and sexuality. So much so that the state of Colorado has put itself into the therapist's counseling room, forbidding her from discussing the values that she and her clients share. Colorado enacted this restriction in 2019 [00:26:00] and prohibited certain conversations between the therapist and their clients under the age of 18, condemning and mislabeling these conversations as conversion therapy.

Again, these are the arguments that the therapist is making before the United States Supreme Court. Now the restriction in Colorado Broadly defines conversion therapy as any practice or treatment that attempts or purports to change the individual's sexual orientation or gender identity, specifically including any effort to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings towards individuals of the same sex.  

In the therapist's eyes, this is a viewpoint based regulation in that Colorado believes that this form of therapy is detrimental to youth, Whereas the therapist believes that this is an effective treatment program, that it is not detrimental, and [00:27:00] that difference in viewpoint makes this subject to First Amendment scrutiny.

But the therapist here is labeling the conversation that occurs in the room, in the counseling room with a patient, as peer speech. and not conduct. But again, if we think about what you're doing, number one, you have to be licensed as a therapist and as a licensed therapist, you are a professional therapist, right?

That is your profession. And as a licensed therapist, you fall under the regulatory aspect of the state. So a state can regulate the profession. And in this way, Just because how you deliver your services is through speech does not suddenly convert a conduct based regulation into a speech regulation.

And that is the argument that the therapist is trying to make in this case. In reading the therapist's brief before the Supreme Court, one of the lines that struck out to me is [00:28:00] she said, Colorado's law could not treat conversations between a sophomore psychology major and her peers as regulable conduct.

Even though those conversations could mirror those between the therapist, in this case, and her clients. The distinction that the Tenth Circuit drew was that she, as a therapist, unlike a psychology student, is a licensed professional counselor, a position earned after years of advanced education and licensure.

And that distinction matters only if professional speech should be treated differently under the First Amendment from unidentical speech. By a nonprofessional. That is the case. Here's, here's the thing, right? A sophomore psychology major can't go out and suddenly start charging patients or would be patients for delivering kind of psychological advice and counseling.

That would be unlawful. Just how any law student cannot go [00:29:00] out and suddenly start giving legal advice because that would be unlawful as well. That even though you're in an educational program that's tied to a specific profession, like psychology, like medicine, and like the law, does not mean you can go out there and have these conversations.

We can have laws that prohibit that conduct. Once you are licensed, again, you can then go out. And have those professional conversations. You can then begin to take on clients. You can then begin to deliver those services. And that's what we have here. So the therapist's argument before the United States Supreme court, well, it just doesn't make sense to me.

But that said, even if this law is subject to First Amendment scrutiny, and let's go with strict scrutiny for a second. You might recall earlier I said that strict scrutiny requires the government to show that it is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. [00:30:00] So there's two parts of this test that courts would have to apply.

The first one is, is there a compelling government interest that the government seeks to achieve through this law. And with respect to conversion therapy, the government has shown, with studies, with anecdotal feedback, with testimony, etc., that over and over and over again, the conversion therapy is harmful and injurious to LGBTQ youth.

And that is a compelling government interest. Protecting children, the health and the safety of children from detrimental medical care is a compelling government interest. And we don't have to look very far.

We don't. Because at the same time that this therapist is making this argument to the United States Supreme Court, we also have Republican led states prohibiting gender affirming care.

Now, those [00:31:00] Republican led states that, again, are moving in a direction to prohibit gender affirming care, well, while those have a slew of constitutional issues as well, that perhaps I'll get into with Another episode in the future. Nonetheless, it's the same argument that they're trying to make so conservatives in challenging this ban on conversion therapy are speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

On one hand, they're saying that no, they should have a right to deliver this therapy, this form of therapy because it involves speech. But on the other hand, No, no, no, we can regulate gender affirming care because it harms the child, but the state's argument in this case is, well, no, no, no, you can't do conversion therapy because that harms the child.

So the Republicans are attacking the state's argument here in Colorado in that they are asserting that that it protects the child, but at the same time [00:32:00] parading around that same interest to support gender affirming care prohibitions. That is inconsistent. 

I am not trying to justify any ban on gender affirming care. That's not what I'm trying to do with this conversation. Rather, I mean to just highlight the fact that Republicans are using one excuse over here, and then at the same time, disregarding that same excuse, just applied to a different case.

And that

but think about it from the other perspective for a second. So I've highlighted the hypocrisy on the right, but think about it from the left's perspective. So from the left's perspective, we are arguing. That, number one, conversion therapy is harmful to the child, and thus it must be banned. But, gender affirming care is not harmful to the child, and thus that should be constitutionally protected.

The state should have no role in regulating gender affirming care. Again, that's also [00:33:00]hypocritical. So, we can't just stand on this pedestal regarding, oh, we want to protect the child. In the delivery of medicine and health care, but rather we must recognize the nuances between these forms of health care.

So on the conversion therapy front, the data overwhelmingly supports the harm to the child. In conversion therapy situations, but then on the gender affirming care front, the data actually shows the opposite, that by not allowing them access to gender affirming care, That is actually more harmful to the child from a psychological, from a mental health perspective.

And so, when we peel back the layers of the onion, so to speak here, and we dive deeper into what the data says to evaluate whether the state actually has a compelling government interest, It fails on the gender affirming care front, but it succeeds on [00:34:00] the conversion therapy front. Now, in the end, I think the state of Colorado's arguments should carry the day, at least the ones that have been filed so far with the United States Supreme Court in Colorado's brief.

And the state argues that if you agree with the therapist, if we accept the therapist's argument, then that would upend both professional healthcare practice. and the Supreme Court's precedent. Colorado highlights how the therapist repeatedly insists that mental health professionals counseling of their patients is no different from casual discussions with a sophomore psychology major, such that the same First Amendment rules should apply in these interactions.

But that is just so far from what the precedent says. United States Supreme Court says that yes, government can regulate professional conduct. It can [00:35:00] regulate the delivery of medicine, the delivery of therapy. And that is what we have here. As the Court of Appeals explained in this case, the therapist position would require The Court of Appeals to conclude, erroneously, that mental health care is not really health care, and that talk therapy is not really medical treatment, which would minimize the mental health profession, distort reality, and ignore the record in this case.

Not to mention, just a fundamental fact, the government, specifically the federal government, and state governments for that matter, all recognize mental health care As healthcare, we don't have to look very far. Just look at the affordable care act or Obamacare, which has provisions on mental health care.

A simple Google search. Of the Affordable Care Act with the term mental health delivers the HHS website, the Health and Human [00:36:00] Services website that literally answers this question, does the Affordable Care Act cover individuals with mental illness?

And the answer, according to HHS, is yes. Mental and behavioral health services are considered what is called essential health benefits. Most individuals and small employer health insurance plans, including all plans offered through the health insurance marketplace, also more commonly known as the Obamacare marketplace, must cover Must cover mental health and substance use disorder services.

Also required our services that can support people with behavioral health challenges. It is quite simple that the government's overall position is that mental health treatment is healthcare and it can be regulated as such.

So here is my overall summary of this case. Number one, this case looks at professional [00:37:00]conduct, not speech. It is no different than a doctor, a medical doctor, delivering care, and again, that regulation incidentally affecting the speech of that medical doctor.

That just because therapy is primarily conversational and talk based, that that does not convert it to something else. It is still a form of healthcare delivery.

And number two, the government has been very clear That mental health care, including therapy, is a form of health care that is subject to regulation, and there's a long history of this. So number three, that long history includes, for example, the fact that a therapist must go get an advanced degree, must practice under the supervision of another for thousands of hours, and then obtain a license before they can deliver psychotherapy.

So for all of these [00:38:00] reasons, This law seems justified and not subject to the First Amendment, but even if it was subject to the First Amendment, there is still a compelling government interest here to justify its ban. As Colorado has argued, its ban is based on the protection of the health and safety of minors who would otherwise be subject to this therapy.

And that is a compelling government interest 

Some may argue that the conversion therapy band is not necessary. Because, you don't have to go see a therapist who engages in conversion therapy. You can choose another therapist. But here's the thing. The ban applies to minors as clients. You can't use conversion therapy on minors. And minors may not have that say in who their therapist is.

A parent or legal guardian may choose who that therapist is and may force their [00:39:00] child to attend conversion therapy. So in this way, according to Colorado, this is a narrowly tailored restriction because it prevents or at least mitigates the harm on the youth by prohibiting that type of therapy. But as an adult.

If you seek conversion therapy, at least under the text of this bill, you are free to do so. You are free to seek conversion therapy, and a therapist is free to give you that conversion therapy as an adult.

Now, the Supreme Court will hear this case next term, in the 2025 term, which begins in October. It is currently winding down its present term, and we will have decisions from the current term being released into June and possibly the first week of July. This case won't be decided until next term, so we probably should not expect an opinion for another year or so regarding this case.

To be [00:40:00] clear, this case, the Supreme Court will only hear the free speech claim. It will not hear the claim under the free exercise clause. So, this is a speech case, not a religion case. And with that, I thank you for joining me today.  

That's it for today's episode of Discourse. Thank you for tuning in and being part of the conversation. You can catch future episodes of Discourse wherever you get your podcasts. If you found this discussion insightful, be sure to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with others who value thoughtful analysis over the noise.

You can also join the conversation by visiting DiscoursePod. org and following me on X and Blue Sky at Prof Unger for more insights and updates. Until next time. Keep thinking critically, stay curious and engage with respect. We'll see you soon.

Discourse is a commentary podcast for informational and educational [00:41:00] purposes only, and does not constitute professional advice or legal advice. The opinions expressed are solely those of the host and any guests and do not reflect the views of any employer institution or organization. This podcast is not journalism and does not adhere to journalistic principles.

It offers analysis, opinion, and discussion on current events, but should not be relied upon as a new source. Listeners should consult qualified professionals for legal or otherwise expert advice specific to their situation. Thanks for listening.