Unresolved Issue of State Law’s Control Over Counselors
The Supreme Court has decided not to take up a case that challenges a state law restricting the freedom of speech of licensed counselors. The case was brought by Brian Tingley, a counselor with over 20 years of experience, who argued that the law infringed on his ability to discuss certain topics with his patients.
Law Challenged for Dictating Topics of “Talk Therapy”
Tingley’s challenge was based on his belief that the state law, known as SB 5722, prohibited him from expressing opinions that differed from the state-approved viewpoint on gender dysphoria and related issues during therapy sessions. In his dissent, Justice Thomas expressed concerns about this restriction, stating that it sets a troubling precedent and infringes on the First Amendment rights of counselors.
Nonprofit Civil Rights Firm Represents Counselor
Representing Tingley, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a nonprofit civil rights firm, argued that the Supreme Court should overturn a ruling by the 9th Circuit, which upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss Tingley’s challenge. The state Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, praised the 9th Circuit’s decision, applauding the ban on “conversion therapy” and efforts to help individuals identify with their gender assigned at birth.
Argument for Counselors’ Freedom of Speech
According to ADF attorney John Bursch, the government should not have the power to control a counselor’s speech. Bursch emphasized that counseling sessions are private and should not be subject to government censorship. He also highlighted the potential consequences faced by counselors under the law, including fines, suspension from practice, and even permanent revocation of their licenses.
First Amendment Implications
Justice Thomas, in his dissent, asserted that the state law clearly regulates speech and therefore violates the First Amendment. He quoted a previous free speech case, stating, “If speaking to clients is not speech, the world is truly upside down.” Thomas further emphasized the importance of the First Amendment, explaining that no official, regardless of their stature, should have the authority to dictate what individuals can express or believe.
The Future of the Issue
Although the Supreme Court declined to take up this particular case, Justice Thomas expressed confidence that the issue would arise again. He believed that the Court should grant certiorari in the future to determine what the First Amendment truly requires in cases like these. The unresolved question of the extent of state law control over counselors’ freedom of speech remains an important and contentious issue.