Court Decision Leaves Room for State Action on Harmful Therapy

The Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar does not grant special protection to conversion therapy nor declare the practice safe or effective. Instead, it:

• Reversed the lower court’s ruling and sent the case back for a narrower question:
  Did Colorado’s law unfairly restrict licensed therapists from discussing sexual orientation or gender identity with children?
• Determined that the First Amendment bars government regulation of professional speech solely on viewpoint grounds.

Two Paths Forward for States

1. Regulate Physical Tactics as Non‑Speech
   
   • Practices such as electric shock, forced medication, or confinement are not protected speech and can be regulated.
2. Strengthen Malpractice Protections
   
   • Extend statutes of limitations to aid victims who discover harm years later.
   • Prove injury from a breach of duty, which the Court notes is often difficult.

Maryland’s Legislative Response

• Bills introduced to enhance malpractice protections for conversion therapy victims.
• Although they failed in the 90‑day session, they will be reintroduced.
• The Court’s stance: When a professional’s breach causes harm, malpractice law should provide relief.

The Core Issue

• Not about free speech or patient choice.
  Major medical and mental‑health organizations agree that attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity are ineffective and harmful.
• Clinicians who cause such harm should face the same accountability as any provider delivering discredited care.

Key Takeaway

The First Amendment protects speech but does not shield clinicians from the consequences of harming patients. This decision clarifies that distinction and paves a path for Maryland to offer accountability and compensation to those harmed by discredited practices.