The Freedom From Religion Foundation is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against a Colorado therapist in her challenge to a state law banning conversion therapy for minors.

Licensed therapist Kaley Chiles sued state officials in September 2022, alleging the conversion ban violates her First Amendment rights. Chiles identifies as a Christian who wants to provide counseling services to adult and minor clients who may question and wish to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity. Although Chiles does not claim to practice minor conversion therapy and makes it clear in her own arguments that she has no desire to do so, she alleges the ban violates her free speech rights and asks to block enforcement of the law against her.

The district court denied the motion, a ruling that the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and that Chiles has appealed to the nation’s high court. In FFRF’s friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court, the state/church watchdog maintains that Chiles has no legal standing (right to sue).

“A plaintiff must have a sufficient ‘personal stake’ in a dispute to establish legal standing,” FFRF’s brief asserts. FFRF maintains that Chiles does not have standing to challenge Colorado’s minor conversion therapy law “because she has not violated and does not intend to violate the law. Simply put, she has no ‘personal stake’ in the constitutionality and enforcement of a law that does not impact her.”

Plaintiffs do not have legal standing to contest a law when they have only an “imaginary or speculative” fear that a law will be enforced against them, FFRF contends. A legally sufficient injury must be real, not abstract. Chiles’ allegations in this case fall well short of the mark for a legally viable injury. Her allegations show she’s just worried that someone might get the wrong impression that she violated the law if and when a future minor client happens to experience a spontaneous “change” in their sexual orientation or gender identity. This kind of speculation and conjecture is insufficient to establish legal standing.

FFRF’s second central argument is that this case is yet another where religious parties have been permitted to concoct fake cases that seek to make the law reflect their personal beliefs. This problem has become especially troubling in cases in which religiously affiliated claimants attempt to strike down laws and policies that protect the LGBTQIA+ community. “Our courts must stop being complicit in these efforts and must, instead, bar the door to parties who sue to further only their religious faith, not legal rights,” the brief states.

The brief thoroughly documents how religious litigants have developed a pattern of fabricating phony legal controversies where none exist — and are getting away with it at the high court. Although the Supreme Court has not hesitated to deny standing to FFRF or other secular litigants who seek judicial relief that might negatively impact religious interests, religious plaintiffs conspicuously have not faced similar limitations. If the court continues to permit them to do so, religious litigants will continue to construct hypothetical and even insincere legal injuries in support of lawsuits designed to strike down laws and policies that they disagree with — while injuring the rights of others.

“Let’s call it what it is — religious privileging,” comments Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president. “The courthouse door is being slammed shut in the face of those seeking to uphold the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, while religious entities and plaintiffs seeking to deny religious freedom to others are allowed entry. We urge the high court to ensure equal justice under the law.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is the largest national association of freethinkers, representing atheists, agnostics, and others who form their opinions about religion based on reason, rather than faith, tradition, or authority. Founded nationally in 1978 as a 501(c) (3) nonprofit, FFRF has more than 42,000 members, including members in every state and the District of Columbia. FFRF believes that religious ideology threatens access to properly regulated mental health care for LGBTQIA+ minors and places them at risk of grave harm. 

The post FFRF Supreme Court brief asks to dismiss Colo. suit alleging free speech harm appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.