Legal, Human Rights, & Policy
This page gathers court filings, policy documents, and legal analyses addressing constitutional rights, human rights, and regulatory frameworks intersecting with psychotherapeutic choice and professional speech, including bans on certain counseling goals.
Otto v. City of Boca Raton, 981 F.3d 854 (11th Cir. 2020).
Summary: The Eleventh Circuit held that local bans on sexual-orientation change counseling for minors were unconstitutional content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on therapist speech under the First Amendment.
Common misrepresentation: Treated either as endorsing abusive “conversion therapy” or as automatically invalidating all therapy bans in every state and context.
What it actually shows: An appellate decision classifying talk-based exploration of sexual fluidity as protected speech, enabling therapeutic discussions.
Manhattan Institute et al. (2025, June 13). Brief of Manhattan Institute, Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team, Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, & Dr. Dovid Schwartz as amici curiae supporting petitioner. Supreme Court of the United States (No. 24-539). https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-539/363059/20250613091513843_Chiles%20merits.pdf
Summary: Argues that Colorado’s conversion-therapy ban lacks religious neutrality by privileging gender-affirming theologies over traditional sex-based distinctions.
Common misrepresentation: Dismissed as denying gender dysphoria legitimacy or promoting discrimination against trans individuals.
What it actually shows: A free exercise claim defending religious clients’ access to therapy exploring alignment of attractions with values.
Rosik, C. H. (2017). Sexual orientation change efforts, professional psychology, and the law: A brief history and analysis of a therapeutic prohibition. Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, 32(1), 47–76. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/jpl/vol32/iss1/3
Summary: Traces how professional organizations, courts, and legislators have come to restrict sexual orientation change efforts, arguing that many justifications rest on selective use of evidence and problematic assumptions about professional speech. Common misinterpretations: Treated as if it endorsed all forms of “conversion therapy,” including coercive or aversive methods, or as if it claimed every SOCE restriction in any jurisdiction is automatically unconstitutional.
What it actually shows: A legal-analytic critique suggesting that bans on voluntary, talk-based, change-allowing therapy risk becoming viewpoint-based speech prohibitions, and calling for more nuanced, evidence-grounded regulation that distinguishes abusive practices from consensual exploratory work.
Liberty Counsel. (2025). Amicus brief for Chiles v. Salazar. Supreme Court of the United States.
Summary: Argues that bans on exploratory and change-allowing therapy violate constitutional protections for speech, conscience, and professional autonomy.
Common misrepresentation: Framed as defending coercive or abusive practices.
What it actually shows: A legal argument supporting clients’ rights to explore sexual fluidity through voluntary, informed therapy without state-imposed viewpoint restrictions, though no outcomes or changes are guaranteed.
Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash