ketanji brown jackson

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Solo Dissent in Conversion Therapy Case: What It Means for Free Speech and LGBTQ+ Rights

When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its 8-1 decision last March rejecting Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors, one justice stood apart from her liberal colleagues—and the rest of the court.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a rare solo dissent, warning that upholding the Christian counselor’s free speech rights could open “a dangerous can of worms” with far-reaching consequences. Her stance not only marked a departure from the usual liberal bloc but also reignited national debates about where to draw the line between protected speech and harmful practices targeting LGBTQ+ youth.

This case—Moyle v. United States, involving Kasey Chiles, a Christian counselor who challenged Colorado’s prohibition on conversion therapy—was more than just another constitutional showdown. For Justice Jackson, it became an opportunity to defend both scientific consensus and state authority to protect vulnerable children.

The Decision That Split the Court

On March 31, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled against Colorado’s law banning licensed professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors. The majority held that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempted the state regulation because Chiles was self-employed and not covered by ERISA-regulated health plans. In other words, the Court said Congress had occupied the field when it came to regulating employee benefit plans, so states couldn’t impose additional rules—even those aimed at preventing harm.

But what struck observers most wasn’t just the legal reasoning; it was how few joined Justice Jackson’s powerful dissent.

While Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Elena Kagan all sided with the majority, none supported Jackson’s call to uphold the Colorado law based on its potential to shield minors from medically discredited treatments.

Jackson didn’t merely disagree—she framed the issue as a critical test of whether states can regulate medical care in ways that align with public health standards. She cited overwhelming evidence that conversion therapy causes depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicide among LGBTQ+ youth.

“To do anything else opens a dangerous can of worms,” she wrote, “that would allow states to be locked out of protecting their citizens—especially our most vulnerable—from practices that science tells us are not only ineffective but actively damaging.”

Her dissent echoed concerns raised by medical associations, including the American Psychological Association, which has long condemned conversion therapy as unethical and dangerous.

Why This Case Matters Now

Conversion therapy refers to any effort—by religious leaders, counselors, or family members—to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity through psychological manipulation, prayer, or other interventions. Despite decades of research showing it does more harm than good, some states still lack clear bans, and even where laws exist, enforcement is uneven.

Colorado passed its ban in 2021 after years of advocacy by LGBTQ+ organizations and mental health experts. But when Chiles sued under ERISA, Colorado argued that the law was essential to protect children from pseudoscientific abuse disguised as therapy.

The Supreme Court’s 8-1 ruling effectively nullified Colorado’s law, creating a patchwork of protections across the country. As of early 2026, only 24 states have comprehensive bans on conversion therapy for minors—leaving millions at risk.

For Justice Jackson, this outcome wasn’t just a procedural loss. It was a moral one.

“The Constitution doesn’t require us to ignore what science tells us about human well-being,” she emphasized during oral arguments. “Nor should we pretend that words like ‘therapy’ somehow immunize deeply harmful practices.”

A Rare Moment of Unity Among Liberals

What made Jackson’s position even more notable was the unusual rift within the liberal wing of the Court.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan typically vote together on major civil rights issues. Yet in this case, Kagan not only voted with the conservative majority but also inserted a pointed footnote criticizing Jackson’s interpretation of First Amendment jurisprudence.

In her majority opinion, Kagan wrote:

“[Jackson] fails to acknowledge relevant precedent governing when speech can be restricted in the context of professional conduct—particularly when that speech involves regulated professions like counseling… We do not believe the First Amendment demands such blinders.”

Legal analysts were quick to note that this was highly unusual. Typically, liberal justices unite around social justice causes. But here, Kagan prioritized free speech doctrine over what she called “medical paternalism.”

Meanwhile, Sotomayor remained silent, offering no public comment despite being asked repeatedly about her view.

This fracture underscored a broader tension within the Court: How much power should states have to regulate professional conduct—even when doing so limits expressive rights?

Who Is Ketanji Brown Jackson—And Why Does Her Stance Matter?

Born in Washington, D.C., in 1970, Ketanji Brown Jackson broke barriers throughout her career. After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard College and cum laude from Harvard Law School, she clerked for Judge David Sentelle of the D.C. Circuit and later for Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court.

Before joining the bench, she served as a federal public defender, representing indigent clients accused of crimes. She then became a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, helping shape criminal justice policy during a period of reform.

In 2021, President Joe Biden nominated her to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, making her the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

Her judicial philosophy emphasizes empathy, textualism, and a deep respect for precedent—but also a willingness to challenge entrenched norms when they conflict with fairness or science.

That’s exactly what she did in Moyle v. United States. By refusing to defer to the majority’s narrow reading of ERISA, she positioned herself as a defender of vulnerable populations and a skeptic of ideological absolutism—even on the left.

As the Encyclopedia Britannica notes: “Jackson brings a unique perspective shaped by her experience as a public defender and her commitment to equitable access to justice.”

Broader Implications: Where Do We Go From Here?

The fallout from the ruling extends beyond Colorado.

Advocacy groups fear other states may now face similar challenges if they attempt to regulate conversion therapy. Legal scholars warn that the ERISA preemption argument could be used to invalidate a range of state consumer protection laws—from vaccine mandates to anti-discrimination statutes affecting healthcare providers.

Meanwhile, LGBTQ+ rights organizations are pushing Congress to pass federal legislation explicitly banning conversion therapy nationwide. Bills have been introduced in past sessions but never advanced due to partisan gridlock.

Some lawmakers argue that the Supreme Court’s decision actually strengthens the need for federal action. Others worry that overreach by the judiciary undermines democratic processes.

For families of LGBTQ+ youth, meanwhile, the ruling feels personal.

“My son came out as nonbinary at 14,” says Maria Lopez, whose family lives in Arizona—a state without a ban on conversion therapy. “We found a therapist who claimed he could ‘restore’ him through prayer and behavioral conditioning. Thank God we pulled him out after three months. But how many others don’t?”

Lopez now volunteers with the Trevor Project, a nonprofit supporting LGBTQ+ youth.

Looking Ahead: Science, Law, and Social Change

So what happens next?

Experts agree on one thing: the fight over conversion therapy isn’t going away.

Medical consensus continues to grow stronger. A 2023 meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics reviewed 20 studies and concluded there is “no evidence” conversion therapy works—and significant evidence it harms participants.

Politically, the issue may gain traction as younger generations—who overwhelmingly oppose conversion therapy—enter leadership roles.

Legally, lower courts will likely revisit similar cases in other states, testing whether ERISA truly blocks all state-level restrictions.

And at the highest level, Justice Jackson’s dissent may influence future rulings—especially if the Court faces another high-profile case involving the balance between free speech and child welfare.

As she herself put it in her opinion:

“We must ask ourselves: When does speech stop being expression and become exploitation? When does the right to say something outweigh the harm it may cause?”

Those questions remain unanswered—but for now, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has given them a voice.

Sources: - CNN, “Takeaways from the Supreme Court decision on Colorado law banning ‘conversion therapy’ for trans and gay minors,” March 31, 2026
- The New York Times, “Supreme Court Rejects Colorado Law Banning ‘Conversion Therapy’ for L.G.B.T.Q. Minors,” March 31, 2026
- USA Today, “What is conversion therapy? What to know after Supreme Court decision,” April 1, 2026
- Oyez.org: Biography of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
- Encyclopedia Britann