Posted on 04/01/2026 8:51:45 AM PDT by Twotone
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson couldn’t get a single colleague to join her dissent warning of “catastrophic” fallout from upholding a Christian counselor’s free speech rights.
The Supreme Court found 8-1 Tuesday that Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” was viewpoint discrimination against Kasey Chiles, who was barred under the law from offering talk therapy encouraging gender-confused kids to feel comfortable in their bodies.
“Ultimately, because the majority plays with fire in this case, I fear that the people of this country will get burned,” Jackson wrote in her 34-page solo dissent.
“It is baffling that we could now be standing on the edge of a precipitous drop in the quality of healthcare services in America,” Jackson wrote. “But the Court sees fit to bring us one step closer to that fate today. Stranger still is the fact that this possibility looms in the 21st century—given what science now enables us to know about medical conditions and treatments, what our cases say, and what we all should have learned by now from history.”
While Jackson worried the decision would open the door to unraveling the entire medical system, Justice Elena Kagan called her out for “reimagining” settled First Amendment law.
First Amendment protections apply no matter what view the state takes, Kagan noted in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
“Consider a hypothetical law that is the mirror image of Colorado’s,” she wrote. “Instead of barring talk therapy designed to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, this law bars therapy affirming those things. As Ms. Chiles readily acknowledges, the First Amendment would apply in the identical way.”
Kagan, who called Chiles’ case a “textbook” example of viewpoint discrimination, pointed out the court’s opinion does not address “content-based but viewpoint-neutral laws.”
“JUSTICE JACKSON’s dissenting opinion claims that this is a small, or even nonexistent, category,” Kagan wrote. “But even her own opinion, when listing laws supposedly put at risk today, offers quite a few examples. Her view to the contrary rests on reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions.”
The decision could have “potential long-term and disastrous implications,” the Justice speculated.
“[T]o be completely frank, no one knows what will happen now,” she wrote. “This decision might make speech-only therapies and other medical treatments involving practitioner speech effectively unregulatable—not to be reached via licensing standards, medical-malpractice liability, or any other means of state control. Who knows? Certainly not the majority.”
Jackson based her argument on what she called a “consensus” from medical organizations concluding that “conversion therapy” is harmful.
“Ultimately, scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the anticipated harms from conversion therapy are twofold,” Jackson claimed. “First, conversion therapy stigmatizes the patient, telling them that their gender identity or sexual orientation is something to be fixed, rather than accepted. This rejection can lead to shame and guilt, which in turn can cause long-term emotional distress. Second, conversion therapy sets patients up to fail by giving them an unattainable goal.”
Some major medical organizations have recently walked back guidance related to caring for minors with gender dysphoria. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons announced in February that it now opposes sex-change surgeries for minors, recommending delaying the procedures until at least 19 years of age.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Joe Biden told the nation he was going to nominate a DEI candidate, and that’s exactly what he did.
er·u·dite
adjective
having or showing great knowledge or learning.
/sarc
She is DEFINITELY the EPITOME of a DEI hire!! Dumb as a Bag of Rocks!!!! The 8 others should SHUN HER!
Anything kadisha Jackson brown posits should be dismissed. Speaking of which, has camala’s speech person gone to work for grabem nuisance? I saw a clip of him doing an interview last night and had no clue what he was blabbing about. 🤔
To be “baffled” by a coworker on a work assignment who doesn’t know what a woman is, means your pretty dumb as well.
Idiot, Evil, Bitch
pick one, or all three they fit.
At least we’re starting to understand why she can’t figure out what a woman is. [hint: she’s braindead]
IMHO I do not see how any sane person would nominate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.
Maybe it is because Jackson is an “Idiot”.
When we look back on the Biden Administration, could there a more perfect SCOTUS pick? The whole thing was a joke. Idiocracy.
Because she is an idiot!
“Idiot” refers to an utterly foolish, senseless, or stupid person, historically denoting severe intellectual disability but now used as a common insult for unwise behavior. Synonyms include fool, half-wit, imbecile, dolt, dunce, and numskull.”
“It is baffling that we could now be standing on the edge of a precipitous drop in the quality of healthcare services in America,”
What she means is: It is baffling that we could now be standing on the edge of a precipitous drop in the number of kids that will have gender identity issues.
Ms. Jackson is still trying to define a woman.
My guess: she didn’t write the dissent, but rather it was ghost written by a woke intellectual—it sounds more “academic” than legalese.
Wonder how long it took her staff to explain what “precipitous” means.
If Koko wouldn’t have died, she would have made a better justice
If you gave the weekend to study for the Bar exam, I think I could score higher than that doof!
What an embarrassment!
If any of them are truly just now baffled by her after her confirmation hearing, they are not much smarter.
She always defers decisions to the “experts”. They are always liberal experts. The consensus of liberal experts derive decisions and policies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.