If Wisconsin already bans conversion therapy, what real difference would a federal ban make after recent court rulings?

Question

Accepted Answer

A federal ban would matter mainly if it is written in a way that survives the Supreme Court’s new First Amendment limits. Wisconsin’s existing ban already governs licensed counselors in the state, but its practical force is now uncertain because similar state laws are being challenged after *Chiles v. Salazar*. The Court did not say governments can never restrict conversion therapy. It said Colorado’s old law, as applied to talk therapy, likely regulated speech based on viewpoint and had to face much tougher constitutional review. That makes older state bans, including Wisconsin’s rule, more vulnerable if they target what a therapist says rather than regulating professional conduct in a neutral way. Wisconsin is already being sued on that basis. A federal law could still make a real difference in three ways. It could set one national standard instead of leaving a patchwork of state and local rules. It could be drafted differently from older bans, following the Court’s guidance by barring therapists from imposing any predetermined outcome on a minor, whether toward or away from an LGBTQ identity. And it could attach federal enforcement tools, funding conditions, or malpractice remedies that states do not uniformly provide. But a federal ban would not automatically override the Court’s ruling. If Congress passed a law resembling the older Colorado model, it could face the same constitutional challenge. So the real issue is not just federal versus state power. It is whether law…

Rebecca Cooke Backs Federal Conversion Therapy Ban After Aug. 11 Primary Backlash

Sources

Sources

Rebecca Cooke Backs Federal Conversion Therapy Ban After Aug. 11 Primary Backlash

Summary

Sources

Insights

Related Stories

Sources

Related Stories