Please for the love of all things holy, read the decisions
I've been seeing a lot of knee-jerk reactions about Chiles V. Salazar. They are, of course, valid. However, beyond knee-jerk reactions, we must seek to analyze the law at least somewhat rationally.
A big source of anger are Kagan and Sotomayor's concurrences. But if you look at their past decisions in Skrmetti, and probably their future decisions in West Virginia v. BPJ, you'll soon realize that they do not favor queer people not having rights.
Chiles insists she does not use aversive methods in her therapy (this is not something Colorado disagrees with, either). So let's please not assume that any of the justices (particularly Kagan and Sotomayor) condone electroshock therapy or the like. Neither are the two liberals actively supporting violence, either,
I am disappointed that neither of the two concurring justices mentioned the harms of conversion therapy, even merely just words, but I do agree that creating sweeping precedent is dangerous, particularly at a time where six (6) justices are leaning conservative. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh likely wanted a much broader ruling, as would Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson. But the will of the conflicted Gorsuch strikes again, it seems, and a narrow ruling is set down. Sure, not the best for anyone, but with a 6-3 split on the court, who is to say that that's not the best outcome? They remanded the case to lower courts.
What I found interesting was that Gorsuch seemed to mention that Chiles believed the Colorado law had some valid applications, especially for therapists actually providing medication/treatment beyond talk therapy. Gorsuch himself never said he thought the law was unconstitutional or not, just that it shouldn't be applied to Chiles' case. (also interesting that Gorsuch is here penning an LGBTQ decision for the majority AGAIN, so soon after Bostock). I suppose that was the only reason two liberal justices joined the conservatives. Or maybe they were getting tired of dissenting, dissenting, and dissenting with no end in sight? It's been a while since 4 liberals were on the court, after all, and a while since a true constitutionalist (Scalia) was on the court as well.
I was given a wishy-washy answer about whether or not the district courts can prohibit only an application of state law, though if they can, I hope that is what the tenth district decides under strict scrutiny.
