WILLIAM BRANGHAM: A Colorado law that# bans what's called conversion therapy for## LGBTQ youth hit a potentially far-reaching# roadblock at the U.S.

Supreme Court today.

In an 8-1 decision, the justices# sided with a Christian counselor## who argued that the law violated# her First Amendment rights.

Our justice correspondent, Ali# Rogin, has more on the ruling.

ALI ROGIN: William, the majority of justices# cast doubt on whether the state of Colorado## can ban licensed therapists from# talking to their minor patients## about their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Supporters of the law argue the ban# was necessary to protect children## from the practice of conversion# therapy that they say is harmful.## In the court's majority opinion, Justice# Neil Gorsuch said -- quote -- "Colorado## may regard its policy as essential to public# health and safety, but the First Amendment## stands as a shield against any effort to enforce# orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country."

Last fall, the "News Hour" spoke to Kaley# Chiles, the therapist at the center of the case.

KALEY CHILES, Licensed Professional Counselor:# The care that is at stake in this lawsuit is that## we are allowed to speak freely# and that we are allowed to,## by the product of that, sort through# feelings, sensations, thoughts, beliefs.

ALI ROGIN: The ruling sends the case back to## a lower court to weigh in on# if the law is constitutional.## Colorado is about one of two dozen states that# have banned conversion therapy for minors.

For more on today's decision, I'm joined now by# the "News Hour" Supreme Court analyst, Amy Howe,## co-founder of SCOTUSblog.

Amy, great to see you again.

AMY HOWE: Good to see you too.

ALI ROGIN: So, in this argument, the# th.. she was doing talk therapy with her# clients, talking them through these issues,## that this really was a violation, this ban is# a violation of her First Amendment protections.

Did that seem to land with the majority?

AMY HOWE: It did indeed.

The state had argued that states have long# had the power to regulate me.. and so that the ban was part of an effort# to regulate conduct, rather than speech,## so that the First Amendment wouldn't apply.

And to# the extent that it regulated speech like Chiles',## it did so only incidentally, sort of# as part of the regulation of conduct.

But the majority didn't buy that# argument at all.

Justice Neil Gorsuch,## writing for the majority, said the First# Amendment is not a word game and said that## what she's doing is speech, and# the state is regulating that.

What this case was about was whether or not# the lower courts applied the correct standard,## the correct test to determine whether or not# the conversion therapy ban was constitutional.## Chiles argued that the lower court# should have applied a less deferential,## more stringent test called strict scrutiny# precisely because her conduct was, in fact,## speech, her talk therapy was speech, and# therefore the First Amendment was involved.

And the Supreme Court agreed with# her.

It didn't go ahead and actually## apply that test.

Instead, it sent# the case back to the lower courts.

ALI ROGIN: The court kept coming back to# this idea of viewpoint discrimination,## that this law allows therapists to affirm a# person's identity, but not discourage that.

Why was that framing so important in this room?

AMY HOWE: It was essential, I think, in no small# part because you have, when you have viewpoint## discrimination, in the Supreme Court's view, you# have the state choosing a side in the debate.

And so you have the state saying you can affirm a# client's gender identity, but you can't work with## them to try to realign their gender identity# to the one that they were assigned at birth.## It seemed pretty clear after oral argument that# Kaley Chiles was likely to win in some form.

It was a little bit of a surprise that it wound# up being 8-1, with justice Ketanji Brown Jackson## being the only dissenter.

Justice Elena Kagan# and Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the majority.## Justice Kagan wrote a concurring opinion in which# she said, this might have been a different case## if we have a law that regulated content,# but didn't discriminate based on viewpoint.

ALI ROGIN: You mentioned Justice Ketanji# Brown Jackson, the lone dissenting voice.

And in her dissent, she really focused# on the harm that she would argue## is done potentially to children# who undergo conversion therapy.## She wrote -- quote -- "Like it or not,# treatment standards exist in America,## and those standards necessarily reflect the# expert medical community's current beliefs## about the safety and efficacy of various medical# treatments, whatever those beliefs might be."

Beyond Justice Jackson's dissent, how# did the issues of the potential harm## and concerns about conversion therapy# play into this argument and this opinion?

AMY HOWE: It was an issue that came up at# the oral argument and then resurfaced again## in Justice Gorsuch's opinion, but relatively# briefly, and he acknowledged that there is this## debate.

The state had relied on it as the# rationale for the conversion therapy ban,## but the opinion sort of downplayed# the consensus among major medical## organizations right now on the idea that# conversion therapy is harmful to LGBTQ teens.

Justice Samuel Alito, I believe, at the# oral argument had pointed out, and then## the opinion made the same point, that# back in the '50s, '60s, and '70s,## major medical associations had called# homosexuality a mental disorder.

And## so the point that the opinion was making was# that these kinds of consensuses can change.

ALI ROGIN: So where does this go from here,## both in terms of this particular# case that gets put back to the## lower courts and the other approximately# two dozen states that have similar bans?

AMY HOWE: So this case will go back to the# lower court for it to apply strict scrutiny,## this very demanding constitutional test.

Both in this case and in the roughly 25 other# states that have similar bans, the Supreme Court## didn't -- sort of tiptoed right up to the line.# It didn't come right out and say that it believed## that the ban, at least as applied to Kaley Chiles,# someone doing talk therapy, was unconstitutional,## but it really strongly signaled that the eight# justices believed that a ban like this was.

And so I think that in the case of Colorado# and in other states that have similar bans,## it's going to be a really tough# sell to try to convince courts## that these laws can survive strict# scrutiny and are constitutional.

ALI ROGIN: Amy Howe, co-founder# of SCOTUSblog, thank you so much.

And we will see you back here tomorrow to discuss## the big birthright citizenship case# that is before the Supreme Court.

AMY HOWE: Looking forward to it.

Thanks so much, Ali.