SCOTUS

SCOTUS Indicates Support for Pregnancy Resource Centers and Donor Privacy

For many Americans, donating freely and privately to causes they align with is more than a legal right — it’s a matter of conscience.

In December, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to indicate support for protecting donor privacy and pregnancy resource centers during oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin.

The state of New Jersey targeted First Choice, a faith-based pregnancy resource center, for purportedly “misleading” donors and clients about its services.

Procedurally, the pregnancy resource center is asking the Court whether it can challenge New Jersey’s subpoena for internal records, including donor lists, before the state seeks to enforce it in court. The technical question will affect a much more significant issue — whether nonprofits can protect their supporters from government exposure.

During oral arguments, the justices showed skepticism towards New Jersey’s position. Many of the Court’s questions pressed the state to explain why nonprofits would have to wait for a subpoena to bring legal action. They also raise constitutional concerns about the chilling effect a state subpoena of donor lists could have on free speech.

Even the Court’s more liberal justices voiced concerns that the threat of disclosure itself can intimidate donors, even if the subpoena isn’t immediately enforced.

Based on questions during oral argument, it seems the Court understands exactly what’s at stake — not just a procedural question, but the right to free association protected by the First Amendment.

The threat of government using its authority to target, harass, or silence support for ministries is a long-standing concern of the faith community.

A victory for First Choice would be a significant win for the pro-life community, religious freedom and the freedom of conscience. It would allow nonprofits across the nation to challenge subpoenas intrusively seeking donor information before donors’ privacy is compromised.

Politically motivated attorneys general would think twice before demanding donor lists.

Churches and faith-based ministries rely on the financial support of donors to function. A ruling in favor of First Choice would strengthen Americans’ long-standing constitutional right to associate privately without fear of government retaliation.

The Court’s final posture on this case remains uncertain, but the message from oral argument was clear — donor privacy matters, government pressure is limited and nonprofits, like pregnancy resource centers, deserve protection.

The Daily Citizen will keep you updated on this developing case.

Supreme Court Hears Colorado ‘Conversion Therapy’ Censorship Case

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday, asking if a Colorado law unconstitutionally censors the free speech of licensed counselors.

Colorado passed HB19-1129, the “Prohibit Conversion Therapy for a Minor Act,” in 2019, prohibiting licensed mental health professionals from offering therapy “to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado, challenged the ban based on her and her clients’ Christian beliefs. Some individuals with unwanted same sex attractions or sexual identity confusion want to live in line with their faith – and they seek help to do so.

The oral arguments ranged over a variety of topics, including Chiles’ motivation for wanting to help people, her clients’ desire for help living according to their faith values, whether “conversion therapy” has been proven to be harmful and why Colorado pushed a one-way agenda on therapists and clients.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed the initial lawsuit on Chiles’ behalf, explaining how her faith informs her counseling work:

Chiles views her work as an outgrowth of her Christian faith. Many of her clients are also Christians who seek her help because of their shared religious beliefs. These clients often believe “that God determines their identity according to what He has revealed in the Bible rather than their attractions or perceptions determining their identity.”

“Chiles has counseled minor clients who want to discuss their gender, sexuality, and identity. Some believe they are living ‘inconsistent with their faith or values” on these issues, resulting in “internal conflicts, depression, [or] anxiety.'”

They desire counseling – sometimes based on their faith – “to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical body.”

But Colorado’s talk therapy ban prevented Chiles from working with these minors who simply want to live according to their faith.

“This law prophylactically bans voluntary conversations, censoring widely held views on debated moral, religious, and scientific questions,” ADF Chief Legal Counsel James A. Campbell argued before the court,

“Aside from this law and recent ones like it, Colorado hasn’t identified any similar viewpoint-based bans on counseling. These laws are historic outliers.”

Campbell pointed to a similar free speech case where a California law was challenged because it forced pregnancy resource centers to promote abortion. He also pointed to the decision in that case where “this Court protected professional speech, highlighting the dangers of censoring private conversations between professionals and their clients.” 

Shannon W. Stevenson argued on behalf of the state of Colorado, pointing to two recent studies used to justify the ban. She told the justices:

And then I would direct you specifically to the Green study and the Turban study. The Green study looked at 34,000 13- to 25-year-olds who had gone through conversion therapy and, after controlling for other factors, found there was a two times rate of attempted suicides among that group.

And in the Turban study, Dr. Turban looked at 27,000 participants. This was specifically on gender identity change efforts, including people who had received those efforts under the age of ten. He looked specifically at childhood exposure and found association with adverse mental health outcomes in adulthood, including suicide ideation and attempts.

But in his closing arguments, Campbell debunked both studies.

“On the issue of studies, there was a reference to the Green and Turban studies. All of those studies relied on biased sampling [and] self-reporting. They conflated aversive techniques with voluntary counseling. They did not isolate licensed counselors, and they did not purport even in their own study to prove causation.”

He’s right.

Amy Green, the lead researcher in the first “study” mentioned, works with The Trevor Project, an LGBT activist group that strives to keep young people trapped in homosexual or transgender identities and behaviors.

The “study” was an “online survey conducted by The Trevor Project,” so not a random group of people or an analysis of individuals in a controlled setting.

While Stevenson said more than 34,000 people had undergone what the survey called “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Change Efforts (SOGICE),” that was not true. Only 1,088 of those surveyed said they had “ever undergone reparative therapy or conversion therapy.”

But the survey never defined this type of therapy or explained the therapeutic techniques “asking them more broadly whether anyone had ever attempted to convince them to change their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Convincing someone to change their “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” – both of which are subjective, political, non-scientific social constructs, is not “therapy.”  

LGBT activist Jack Turban took “data” from the “2015 Transgender Survey,” conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality – hardly an unbiased group. It relied on “recalled lifetime exposure” to “gender identity conversion efforts (GICE).”

Stevenson said that 27,000 people had received “conversion therapy,” but, again, this was misleading, as only 3,869 “reported exposure to GICE in their lifetime.” Of those, 35% reported that this was from a religious advisor – not a licensed therapist.

The survey asked participants to recall, “Did any professional (such as a psychologist, counselor, or religious advisor) try to make you identify only with your sex assigned at birth (in other words, try to stop you being trans)?”

The study never clearly defined “GICE.” It never clarified key issues such as the length of time a transgender-identified person was involved in such efforts, who worked with them, what their credentials where, what kind of therapy was involved or how old they were.

Those surveyed were just asked if they remember someone, somewhere, sometime, somehow telling them they shouldn’t “be trans.”

Poor “studies” from LGBT activist groups don’t justify trampling on free speech.

In his final rebuttal, Campbell pointed out a key flaw in Colorado’s assault on the First Amendment: The law discriminates on the basis of a person’s views on homosexuality and transgenderism, delegitimizing people with a biblical view of sexuality.

This law’s viewpoint discrimination is even worse than we’ve heard so far this morning because the State of Colorado would allow a 12-year-old without their parents’ consent to enter into counseling that would go the opposite way on these issues of gender identity and sexual orientation, but if that same 12-year-old with their parents’ consent want to seek counseling in the opposite direction, the kind that my client would provide, they are not able to do that. That kind of viewpoint discrimination must survive strict scrutiny.

Chiles’ case against the state of Colorado has important ramifications, as 23 states, Washington, D.C. and dozens of local jurisdictions have similar counseling censorship laws in place.

Please pray with us that the Supreme Court sees Colorado’s law for what it is: censorship of free speech, an assault on religious freedom and the imposition by the state of a sexualized, secular worldview on people of faith.

A decision in the case is expected by the end of June 2026.

Related Articles and Resources

If you or someone you know is struggling with homosexuality or transgenderism, Focus on the Family offers a one-time complimentary consultation with our ministry’s professionally trained counseling staff. The consultation is free due to generous donor support.

To reach Focus on the Family’s counseling service by phone, call 1-800-A-Family (232-6459) weekdays 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Mountain Time). Please be prepared to leave your contact information for a counselor or chaplain to return a call to you as soon as possible. Alternatively, you can fill out our Counseling Consultation Request Form.

We also offer local referrals for licensed counselors who align with the mission and values of Focus on the Family.

Read more about Chiles v. Salazar at ADF.

Appeals Court Permits Colorado’s Counseling Censorship Law to Stand

Are People Born Gay? A look at what the research shows and what it means for you

Colorado Counselor Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Free Speech Case

Colorado Lurches to the Far Left

Focus on the Family’s Position: Counseling for Unwanted Homosexuality

Is Therapy to Leave Homosexuality Damaging? New Review Says, ‘No Proof of Harm’

Judge Rules Against Challenge to Colorado Therapy Ban for ‘LGBT Minors’

New Study: Even Failed Efforts to Leave Homosexuality Are Not Harmful

New Study Shows Therapy to Leave Homosexuality Can Be Effective and Helpful

Opening Brief Filed at SCOTUS Defending Christian Counselor’s Free Speech

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Colorado’s Counseling Censorship Law

What Is ‘Conversion Therapy’?

Why We Support Therapy for Unwanted Homosexuality

Amy Coney Barrett: Wife, Mom and Supreme Court Justice

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is out with a new book this week, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.

In its review, The New York Times pays the 53-year-old justice a compliment, suggesting the work “Is as careful and disciplined as its author,” but then goes on to describe the book as being “studiously bland.”

Yet one of the most interesting elements of books by members of the High Court usually stems from the interviews the justices grant in their effort to promote their projects. We regularly read their decisions and hear from them on the bench, but they’re historically tight-lipped and often outside the media spotlight. As a result, it’s easy to draw caricatures of the nine members that are often far removed from reality.

Justice Barrett is the first and only female member of the court with school-age children, and seven in all: Emma (22), Vivian (19), Tess (19), John Peter (16), Liam (14), Juliet (12), and Benjamin (11).

In a USA Today interview this past week, we see a real poignant and sentimental side of the 103rd associate justice. She talks about leaving Notre Dame Law School and South Bend, Ind., and especially the private life many take for granted. Justice Barrett describes standing out front of their house during a farewell party, hearing the children playing in the yard, longtime friends coming and going.

“I knew that I would never be able to feel as free with my friends and the people who I was interacting with,” she said. “The hardest thing for us to give up was just that freedom, the ease that you feel with friends you’ve had for a long time, and the freedom that you feel about having a life that’s outside of the public eye.”

Back in 2006, then Professor Barrett spoke to Notre Dame Law School graduates and reminded them that their “fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God.”

After being nominated by President Trump in 2020 and confirmed by the United States Senate, life went on for the Barretts in Washington, D.C., of course, only now with a security detail in tow. “My daughter doesn’t really enjoy being picked up from soccer practice in an armored vehicle,” she acknowledged.

Once upon a time, Supreme Court justices were able to walk unrecognized or unbothered out on the Mall during the lunch hour. Early in his tenure on the High Court, Justice Clarence Thomas was known to walk to morning Mass. Still, Justice Barrett works hard to maintain some degree of normalcy.

“I spend my days talking to law clerks about cases and writing and analyzing and reading, and then I leave and I’m on the sidelines of a soccer game or making a grocery run or serving lunch, volunteering at my children’s school,” she reflected.

Asked about how different life is at the Supreme Court or appeals court as compared to her career as a law professor, Justice Barrett pulled back the curtain.

“When you’re a law professor, sure, you’re giving people grades, you’re writing law review articles,” she said. “But when you are a judge, your decisions affect real people. If it’s a criminal case, it’s the liberty of someone. If it’s a capital case, it’s the life of someone.”

Does the burden of the work cause her to lose sleep?

“Sometimes I’m up at night because I’m trying to figure out the right answer, and they’re really hard, and it’s important to get it right,” she said. “Sometimes I’m up in the night because I’m working on an opinion, and it can be difficult to think about how to write the opinion and how to write it in the right way to keep a majority.”

Justice Barrett has brought to the High Court the sensibilities of not only a judge concerned with abiding by the Constitution, but also a wife and mother concerned with real-life challenges. During oral arguments this past January, Barrett pushed back on an attorney who suggested blocking or filtering content negated the need for age-verification software.

“Well, whoa, whoa, whoa,” Barrett said to the lawyer. “Content filtering for all those devices, I can say from personal experience, is difficult to keep up with,” she said. “I think that the explosion of addiction to online porn has shown that content filtering isn’t working.”

During the interview with USA Today, Justice Barrett disclosed that she saw Abigail Adams as a personal hero, and it’s easy to see why.

“She had many children and ran the farm, and she made money for the family because she was a shrewd investor,” Barrett said. “But she couldn’t do this (serve as a Supreme Court justice) because she didn’t have the rights and just because of the way the world was. But now our Constitution has changed and our society has changed in ways that the mother of school-aged children can serve on the Supreme Court.”

Like Barrett, Abigail Adams, wife to President John Adams, was a person of deep Christian faith. Wrote Adams, “He (or she) who neglects his duty to his Maker, may well be expected to be deficient and insincere in his duty towards the public.”

Justice Barrett’s life and testimony makes clear she has prioritized her devotion to the Lord in both word and deed.

Please join us in continuing to pray for Justice Amy Coney Barrett, her husband, Jesse, and their seven children.

Image from Getty.

US Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Law Protecting Kids From Transgender Mutilation

On June 18, the United States Supreme Court issued a historic 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s law banning the “transgender” mutilation of minors. The ruling is a monumental win for children, families and commonsense policy making.

The decision affirms the state’s authority to protect minors from dangerous and experimental transgender medical procedures. It also rejects the argument that children have a constitutional right to access medical interventions like opposite-sex hormones and surgery. The Court’s decision sets significant legal precedent in favor of state sovereignty and the democratic policy making process to determine the controversial issues of the day.

As previously reported by the Daily Citizen,  Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 prohibits doctors from prescribing puberty-blocking drugs and opposite-sex hormones or performing surgeries to “transition” a minor. The ACLU and LGBT activists challenged the law, claiming that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution because it discriminated on the basis of sex.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the Supreme Court’s majority opinion and was joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Justice Alito joined the majority opinion in part.

Roberts explained that the law does not discriminate against transgender-identified individuals because it applies neutrally to all individuals on the basis of age and medical purpose. The majority applied rational basis review, the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, because classifying by age and medical purpose does not require a higher level of legal scrutiny. Based on a rational basis review, the Court concluded that Tennessee has a legitimate interest in protecting children from unproven and potentially harmful medical treatments and surgeries.

The majority also opined that it’s not the role of the Court to settle ongoing debates about transgender medical interventions for minors. Roberts wrote:

This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. … The Court’s role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us, but only to ensure that the law does not violate equal protection guarantees. … It does not. … Questions regarding the law’s policy are thus appropriately left to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.

Justice Thomas concurred separately and argued that gender identity should not be extended to sex-based equal protection doctrine and reiterated that rational basis review is “critical to safeguarding” a legitimate government interest.

Justice Barrett also filed a concurrence emphasizing that “courts must give legislatures flexibility to make policy in this area.”

Justice Alito concurred in part and underscored the right of states to regulate these matters and clarified his position that “transgender status does not qualify under our precedents as a suspect or ‘quasi-suspect’ class” that deserves a heightened constitutional review.

The Court’s ruling places the United States (at least in the 26 states that have enacted Help Not Harm laws) in line with several European countries — such as Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom — that have restricted the use of these treatments in minors due to safety concerns and a lack of long-term evidence.

Justices Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan dissented from the majority, arguing that the law discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status and should have been reviewed with a heightened scrutiny. The dissent also maintained that to deny minors transgender medical intervention is a violation of constitutional protections.

The majority opinion is a decisive win for the idea that the people should resolve controversial medical and moral issues of the day by democratic processes rather than judicial fiat.

This ruling will set a strong precedent for the constitutionality of similar laws nationwide.

Focus on the Family applauds the Court’s decision. This ruling will help families protect their children from radical trans ideology that tries to deny the inherent goodness of God’s design for human sexuality and the value of male and female made in His image. 

Now is the time to call on Congress to pass a federal law to ban experimental trans interventions on minors nationwide. Every child in America deserves to be protected from reckless medical experimentation. Contact your senator and representative today.

Image from Getty.

Three Important Cases for Parental Rights, Supreme Court Rulings Expected Soon

With about one month left in the United States Supreme Court’s term, three critically important cases for parents still await a ruling. The three cases involve protecting children from pornography, permitting an opt-out from LGBT materials in classrooms and a ban on “transgender” mutilation of minors. Here’s what you need to know.

Opting Out of LGBT Classroom Material

In Mahmoud v. Taylor,  a group of Muslim, Jewish and Christian parents in Maryland are asking to opt their children out of public school mandated LGBT materials. The parents argue that the curriculum is in conflict with their religious teachings on gender and sexuality, and therefore, without an opt-out provision, it infringes on their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.

The question presented to the Court is whether the public schools violate the religious freedom of parents by requiring LGBT materials in the curriculum without providing an opt-out.

Both lower courts ruled against the parents holding that exposure to differing viewpoints in public education is not a violation of religious freedom.

As reported by the Daily Citizen, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case in April and appeared to be leaning towards requiring opt-outs which would set precedent for broader religious exemptions and expand parental rights in public schools. 

You can read the court transcript here.  

Banning Transgender Mutilation of Minors

United States v. Skrmetti, involves a  Tennessee law protecting minors from experimental, damaging trans medical interventions like opposite-sex hormones and surgery.

The ACLU and LGBT activist groups filed a lawsuit against the law claiming it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution because it discriminates on the basis of sex.

The state of Tennessee contended that it was trying to protect children from transgender experimentation on kids.

After an initial injunction, the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the state law.

Oral arguments were held in December, and at the time, court watchers predicted oral arguments suggested the Court “appeared ready to uphold” the ban.

You can read the oral arguments transcript here.  

Prohibiting Access of Minors to Pornography

Finally, in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton a Texas state law requiring pornographic websites to use an age-verification system to protect kids from accessing porn is being challenged.

The porn industry filed a lawsuit against the state arguing the added requirements violate the First Amendment rights of adults by creating undue burdens on lawful adult speech and infringing on the privacy of users.

The state argued that it was trying to protect minors from harmful, explicit material and could do so in a way that still protects the privacy of adult users.

The lower courts issued contrasting rulings in this case. The district court ruled against the state law and granted a preliminary injunction. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mixed ruling – upholding the age verification requirement but struck down a health warning provision as compelled speech.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on January 15 and appeared divided on the constitutional question.

You can read the court transcript here.  

Expected Rulings

The Court is slated to meet through the end of June and could possibly go into July. The next date on which the Court will release opinions is this Thursday, June 5. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court releases it’s more controversial opinions at the end of the term, so it’s likely we won’t get an opinion on these three cases until the end of the month.

Daily Citizen will keep you informed as the Supreme Court issues rulings in these cases.

Image from Getty.