Add Row 
Add 
Sixth Circuit's Bold Move on Conversion Therapy Ban
In a surprising twist, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has taken a significant step by blocking Michigan's conversion therapy ban for minors, diverging from the typical protocol of awaiting guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision, made on December 17, 2025, is pivotal in the ongoing national conversation about the intersection of free speech and LGBTQ+ rights.
The Role of Speech in Therapy
Judge Raymond Kethledge's majority opinion emphasized that the Michigan law, which prohibits therapy aimed at changing a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity, infringes on therapists' free speech rights. The law allows counseling that supports gender transitions while banning any therapeutic practice that seeks to change a child’s sexual orientation, which Kethledge argued is a discriminatory approach that unduly limits speech based on viewpoint.
This ruling raises fundamental questions about what constitutes acceptable speech in therapeutic contexts and whether the state can regulate speech based on its own moral beliefs. As noted by Kethledge, the law constrains the ability of therapists to express their professional opinions, creating an environment where providers must self-censor due to fear of losing their licenses.
The Dissent: A Call for Caution
In contrast to the majority opinion, Judge Rachel Bloomekatz dissented, cautioning against the judicial haste to decide on this matter prior to a possible Supreme Court ruling. She pointed out that the court should have deferred to the imminent decision in Chiles v. Salazar, which addresses similar issues. Bloomekatz highlighted the harm that conversion therapy practices can cause, emphasizing the need for regulation to protect vulnerable populations.
A National Spotlight on Conversion Therapy
This case is not merely a state issue. Michigan's conversion therapy ban fits into a larger trend across the United States, with over 20 states already enacting similar laws to prevent practices deemed harmful to LGBTQ+ youth. As LGBTQ+ rights advocates have pointed out, conversion therapy is backed by discredited beliefs that can lead to serious consequences, including increased rates of depression and self-harm among affected individuals.
The outcome of the ongoing debates about conversion therapy has implications far beyond Michigan; it reflects a growing cultural divide over LGBTQ+ rights and the approach to mental health treatment. As states grapple with these issues, they are forced to consider the balance between protecting vulnerable youth and respecting the rights of practitioners to engage in their professions freely.
Looking Forward: What’s Next?
As we anticipate a Supreme Court decision that could reshape the landscape of conversion therapy laws in the United States, the Sixth Circuit’s intervention underscores the urgency of the dialogue surrounding free speech and the mental health of LGBTQ+ minors. How will states respond if the Supreme Court aligns with the Sixth Circuit’s rationale, and what support systems will emerge for those who disagree with the prevailing therapeutic narratives?
The interplay of personal beliefs, professional ethics, and judicial rulings will continue to evolve, signaling a critical moment for mental health advocates and LGBTQ+ rights proponents alike. Stakeholders on both sides seem braced for the forthcoming discussions which may delineate permissible practices in therapy and reshape the broader societal attitudes toward LGBTQ+ youth.
Write A Comment