Sonia Sotomayor Questions Attorney on Conversion Therapy Ban Case

Strict Scrutiny and Harmful Therapy

• 💡 Justice Sotomayor questioned whether a study proving harm is always required for strict scrutiny, using a hypothetical about advising anorexic patients.
• 🎯 The attorney argued that the hypothetical was different because it involved direct physical harm, whereas the current case involves helping gender dysphoric children.
• ⚠️ Sotomayor countered that studies exist indicating harm from the advice given in this case, and that the attorney's absolute statement about not always needing a study misstates the law.

Circuit Splits and Precedent

• ⚖️ Sotomayor noted that only one circuit (the 11th) has applied strict scrutiny to this type of therapy, while others (9th and 3rd) have not.
• ❓ She questioned why the Supreme Court should break its normal pattern and apply strict scrutiny in this case, suggesting the lower courts might have had issues applying it.
• ⚡ The attorney argued for immediate review due to ongoing harm, comparing the situation to the Mimmude case where the Court applied strict scrutiny despite lower courts using rational basis review.