Tingley v. Ferguson

The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a Washington state law that bans licensed counselors from practicing conversion therapy on minors. By denying the petition for certiorari (the Court's decision to hear the case), the Court let stand a lower court ruling that the law is a valid regulation of professional conduct.

This decision means that state-level bans on conversion therapy for minors remain in effect in many parts of the country. It affects licensed therapists who argue that such laws violate their religious beliefs and their right to speak freely with their clients.

The case highlights an ongoing debate over whether professional counseling is protected free speech or conduct that the government can regulate. It also touches on whether the Court should reconsider past rulings that make it harder to challenge laws that impact religious practices.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari on December 11, 2023, meaning they chose not to review the case.

The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case leaves Washington's ban on conversion therapy for minors in place.

Lower courts and state governments will continue to look for guidance on how to balance professional regulations with First Amendment rights. Affected parties will likely monitor future cases to see if the Court eventually decides to address the constitutionality of similar bans.

A licensed counselor argued that Washington's law banning conversion therapy for minors violated his First Amendment rights. He claimed the law censored his private conversations with clients and burdened his religious speech.

Licensed counselors in Washington must continue to follow the state's ban on conversion therapy for minors. This ensures that the state's professional conduct standards remain enforceable for all licensed practitioners.

The case questioned whether laws regulating professional counseling should be treated as speech or conduct. It also asked if the Court should overrule precedents that allow neutral laws to burden religious practices.

Since the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, the ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stands. Legal experts will now watch for how other lower courts handle similar challenges in different states.

This case is part of a larger trend of legal battles over the intersection of LGBTQ+ rights and religious freedom. It reflects the ongoing tension between state protections for minors and individual constitutional rights.