Democrats Push Private Lawsuits to Counter Supreme Court Decision
In a landmark 8-1 decision issued on March 31, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar that Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for minors violates the First Amendment when applied to talk therapy. The Court held that the law impermissibly regulates speech based on viewpoint by prohibiting counselors from discussing or assisting minors who wish to align with their biological sex or reduce same-sex attractions, while permitting gender-affirming counseling. Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch emphasized that states cannot censor disfavored viewpoints in the confidential therapist-client relationship.
Gorsuch wrote, “we conclude that the courts below failed to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny in this case.” Gorsuch “the First Amendment protects many and varied forms of expression, the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech. And that is exactly the kind of expression in which Ms. Chiles seeks to engage.”
Gorsuch then fired a shot directly over the bow of Minnesota statute that specifically takes sides in the direction of the conversion therapy. “When the government seeks not just to restrict speech based on its subject matter, but also seeks to dictate what particular ‘opinion or perspective’ individuals may express on that subject, ‘the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant,’” Gorsuch stressed. “’Viewpoint discrimination,’” Gorsuch said, “represents ‘an egregious form’ of content regulation, and governments in this country must nearly always ‘abstain’ from it.”
Minnesota Democrat legislators appear to have anticipated the ruling. They have introduced a workaround bill designed to chill the very speech the Supreme Court just protected.
Minnesota is one of 23 states that bans licensed mental health professionals from practicing “conversion therapy” on minors. Enacted in 2023, Minnesota Statutes § 214.078 defines conversion therapy as any practice seeking to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Violations currently subject professionals to discipline by their licensing boards. The law explicitly protects therapy that affirms same-sex attraction or transitioning away from a patient’s biological sex, while prohibiting the opposite.
The Supreme Court just ruled that such viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional. Yet Minnesota’s statute still permits efforts to affirm same-sex attraction while banning “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender.” This creates a direct conflict with the Court’s decision.
Democratic lawmakers have introduced a bill that threatens therapists whose speech was just protected. HF 4468 in the House and its companion SF 4706 would create a new private cause of action under Minnesota Statutes chapter 604 for “harmful conversion therapy practices.” Individuals who claim they were harmed by such therapy before age 18 could sue the mental health professional who provided it. Parents or guardians could sue on behalf of minors, or later if the individual is deceased or incapacitated.
The bill defines “psychological harm” broadly to include depression, anxiety, self-harm, suicidal ideation, PTSD, and loss of self-esteem. A prevailing plaintiff could obtain injunctive relief, a minimum $50,000 civil penalty, compensatory and punitive damages, plus attorney fees and costs.
This is not ordinary enforcement. It is a deliberate legislative workaround meant to intimidate. The threat of six-figure judgments and crushing legal bills is a replacement for licensure board sanctions. Therapists will understandably avoid any counseling that could later be labeled an attempt to “change” a young person’s gender identity or expression—the precise viewpoint discrimination the Supreme Court condemned.
The definition’s vagueness heightens the danger. Many minors struggling with gender dysphoria also face co-occurring conditions such as autism, trauma, anxiety, or depression. An activist parent or former patient could weaponize the law to challenge that exploration as “conversion therapy” and seek a large payout.
This approach ignores both emerging evidence and binding Supreme Court precedent. The United Kingdom’s Cass Review and recent policy reversals in several European countries have highlighted the weak evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in minors. Those nations now prioritize comprehensive mental health care over rushed medical affirmation.
Notably, the Democrat’s workaround bill allows lawsuits to be filed either in the county where the care was provided or where the patient lives at the time of filing—effectively enabling forum shopping for a more favorable venue.
Minnesota parents deserve access to therapy that addresses the root causes of their children’s distress rather than having them steered toward irreversible medical interventions. Mental health professionals deserve the freedom to practice evidence-based care without fear of activist-driven litigation or First Amendment violations. Kids deserve to grow up without irreversible medical interventions that can’t consent to but could them sterile and permanently disfigured.