Justice Alito Questions Colorado Solicitor General on Conversion Therapy Ban

Supreme Court Oral Arguments in Chiles V. Salazar

• ⚖️ Justice Samuel Alito questioned Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson regarding the state's law that prohibits conversion therapy for minors.
• ❓ Alito presented a hypothetical scenario of an adolescent male seeking therapy to reduce same-sex attraction, asking if this would be banned under the statute.

Interpretation of the Conversion Therapy Statute

• 🎯 The Solicitor General stated that the statute's ban hinges on the purpose of the therapy being to change sexual orientation or gender identity.
• 🚫 If a therapist is asked to help a minor become straight, it would be banned; however, helping a minor cope with their feelings would be permitted.
• 🗣️ Alito challenged this interpretation, suggesting it conflicts with the statute's plain language, particularly the phrase "including efforts to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex."

Analogy and Statutory Interpretation

• 🐶 Alito used an analogy of a "no dangerous animals, including pitbulls" rule to argue that specific examples listed after "including" are indeed prohibited.
• 🍲 He also used a culinary analogy, "I can't say I like meat including tomatoes and celery," to illustrate how the word "including" can be restrictive.
• ⚖️ The Solicitor General maintained that the "including" clause is illustrative and that the core of conversion therapy is the effort to change orientation or identity.

Viewpoint Discrimination Concerns

• ❓ Alito presented two contrasting scenarios: one where a minor wants to lessen same-sex attraction and another where a minor wants to feel comfortable as a gay young man, both with similar feelings of unease and guilt.
• ⚖️ He suggested that the statute, as interpreted, could lead to blatant viewpoint discrimination by allowing therapy for one outcome but not the other, based on the desired change.
• ✅ The Solicitor General responded that both scenarios, as described, would likely be permissible if the goal was not to change sexual orientation.