Tangle The conversion therapy case before the Supreme Court.
14 snips
Oct 14, 2025 
Audrey Moorhead, an Associate Editor at Tangle, dives into the complexities of the landmark Childs v. Salazar case. She clarifies the debate around conversion therapy bans, distinguishing between harmful practices and legal implications of therapy. The discussion highlights how this case touches on free speech and state regulation. Moorhead questions whether the Supreme Court will apply strict scrutiny in its review, pondering if the state can convincingly show that talk therapy poses real harm to minors.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Court Signals Skepticism Toward Colorado Ban
- The Supreme Court heard Childs v. Salazar about Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors and free speech claims.
- Many justices seemed sympathetic to the therapist, signaling possible heightened scrutiny or remand.
Talk Therapy vs. Physical Abuse Distinction
- Audrey Moorhead argues Colorado conflates abusive physical conversion practices with talk therapy and that distinction matters.
- She sees talk therapy as protected speech and worries the law is overly broad and viewpoint-discriminatory.
Precedent And Slippery-State Standards
- Counsel invoked NIFLA v. Becerra as precedent protecting professional speech in regulated settings.
- The government warned that allowing bans could let states suppress other therapeutic views across jurisdictions.