14 Powerful Lines From Justice Jackson's Dissent on Conversion Therapy: 'Like It or Not, Treatment Standards Exist in

[justaprogressive]

America - Ms. Magazine

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for LGBTQ youth, ruling the law likely violates the First Amendment—a decision advocates warn will put young people at risk.

In a rare and forceful move, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered her dissent from the bench.

Below, we’ve pulled the most powerful, incisive—and yes, spiciest—lines from her 35-page dissent, followed by the full text. Read, share your favorite line, and help lift up a dissent that refuses to mince words about what’s at stake.

1.

Not only is conversion therapy ineffective, former participants report that it causes lasting psychological harm. Gay and transgender children who underwent nonaversive conversion therapy say they were taught to feel shame and self-hatred. Survivors continue to suffer from PTSD, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. As one survivor put it, conversion therapy “‘came close to killing me.’”

2.

Chiles insists that, although she is a counselor licensed by Colorado, she has a constitutional right to flout Colorado’s statute and the standard of care it incorporates if a client asks her to do so.

3.

Talk therapy is a medical treatment. So, why wouldn’t such speech-based medical treatments be subject to reasonable state regulation like any other kind of medical care?

The United States and the majority just insist that a law that undertakes to regulate speech-based medical treatments is presumptively unconstitutional because the treatment is being administered solely through speech. But that reasoning is maddeningly circular, and it is based on happenstance, not logic.

https://msmagazine.com/2026/03/31/conversion-therapy-justice-ketanji-brown-jackson-dissent-chiles-v-salazar/

[Stargleamer]

1. She's likely the best Supreme Court Justice ever. . .

but basically conversion therapy is harmful and she sought to prevent its harms.

[hunter]

2. Conversion "therapy" ought to be a felony with a mandatory prison sentence.

Ten years sounds about right.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. We will see if other state laws banning conversion therapy stand up in court

If they do, then it would seem to indicate the Colorado law was poorly written, and the 8-1 ruling was the correct one.

My understanding is the Colorado law prohibited therapists from even speaking about conversion therapy, hence the First Amendment challenge.

In California, where I was a licensed therapist, therapists could talk about conversion therapy, but could not perform that type of treatment without losing their license to practice. A therapist could explain there is no evidence to support the efficacy of conversion therapy, and in fact, there is much evidence to show it causes harm. My understanding is the Colorado law does not even allow for this type of speech. It is not clear to me if the Colorado law was a criminal law, with potential punishment such as fines and incarceration, or if was a regulatory statue limiting professional practice.

So, we shall see- will the anti- conversion therapy laws in other states fall in court challenges?

[angrychair]

6. I'm confused

My assumption this makes conversation therapy the law of the land? Do you know exactly what this allows because nothing I've read gives a clear answer.

My assumption, since it's SCOTUS, is this applies nationwide and LGBTQ people can now be forced into conversation therapy.

[ShazzieB]

10. It opens the door to laws prohibiting conversion therapy in other states being contested.

But I don't see why it would automatically strike them all down. I suspect there is something problematic about the wording of the Colorado law in particular that made this 8 -1 decision possible. If so, Colorado lawmakers can pass a new law that will be harder to contest.

TL/dr: I don't see any reason to panic just yet.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. It's not crystal clear to me either

The Colorado law was the subject of the suit and was struck down as an infringement of free speech.

It’s not clear if this will affect the laws in other states, which would have different language from the Colorado law, which in my understanding, was extremely specific in restricting therapist’s actual speaking on the subject of conversion therapy, not just the practice.

I guess we will have to wait and find out.

[Mblaze]

11. It seems to me that "conversion therapy"

Presupposes that same sex attraction and love is pathological. I think that idea had been made moot by years of testimony.

[dickthegrouch]

13. Doctors are prohibited from talking about abortion in several States.

We must attack the inconsistencies.
Apply the newly interpreted law in the most inimical (but apparently legal) ways against KKKristians and repugs.
Conversion therapy for KKKristians (lions don't even speak, should be less of a problem for these SCROTUMs).

[dickthegrouch]

4. How could the other two not have joined this dissent?

I am deeply disappointed.
Not to say FURIOUS that normally sane justices appear to have lost their bearings on this one.
Meticulously researched, beautifully argued; Thank you Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

[angrychair]

5. What she said is irrelevant

Because she was in the minority. SCOTUS has now made it legal to torture LGBTQ people.

[Buddyzbuddy]

7. If it was good enough for "Clockwork Orange" ......

For those of you that feel compelled to point out it wasn't "talk therapy" I purposely compare the two sarcastically.

[MarcoZandrini]

8. We need...

…6 more like her!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. Deadline Legal Blog-Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson steps out alone, again - this time on 'conversion therapy'

The Biden appointee made the rare move of dissenting from the bench, in the latest action separating her from her colleagues.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson steps out alone, again – this time on ‘conversion therapy’

💾

©

— Irish News 🇮🇪 (@news-flows-ir.bsky.social) 2026-03-31T16:56:54.000000Z

https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/justice-ketanji-brown-jackson-dissent-conversion-therapy

In her dissent, the Biden appointee wrote that the practice of seeking to “convert” a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity has been “widely discredited within the medical and scientific community” and found to cause “lasting psychological harm.”

Departing from Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion for eight members of the court, Jackson wrote, “The conclusion that a State can regulate the provision of medical care even if, in so doing, it incidentally restricts the speech of some providers, fully comports with the First Amendment’s animating principles.”

She continued: “Ultimately, because the majority plays with fire in this case, I fear that the people of this country will get burned.” Until now, she wrote, licensed medical professionals couldn’t do or say whatever they wanted. States could regulate them, which, she wrote, contributed to the high quality of American care.

“Today, the Court turns its back on that tradition,” Jackson wrote. “And, to be completely frank, no one knows what will happen now.” She accused the majority of reaching this “momentous decision” without “adequately grappling with the potential long-term and disastrous implications of this ruling.”

The justice closed her solo dissent by worrying about the majority having opened a “dangerous can of worms” that “threatens to impair States’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect,” pushes the Constitution “into uncharted territory in an utterly irrational fashion” and “risks grave harm to Americans’ health and wellbeing.”

I agree with Jackson's dissent. I believe that conversion therapy is close to torture. The fact that you can use "talk therapy" may open a dangerous can of worms. I strongly believe in the First Amendment but here there needs to be limits. Talk therapy is less objectionable compared to other methods of conversion therapy but it has risks