- within Wealth Management, Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring and International Law topic(s)
Pryor Cashman Partner Ross M. Bagley, a member of the firm's Litigation and Intellectual Property Groups, was quoted in the Washington Examiner's recent report, "Colorado 'conversion therapy' case to test free speech vs LGBT rights." The article examines the high-stakes Supreme Court case Chiles v. Salazar, which challenges Colorado's ban on conversion therapy on free speech grounds.
Ross served as lead counsel on an amicus brief filed in support of Colorado's law, representing LGBTQ advocate Mathew Shurka. His comments in the article reflect key arguments defending the state's authority to regulate licensed therapeutic care, particularly when vulnerable populations like minors are involved.
Ross framed the central legal issue as a conflict between personal belief and public protection:
"The question really comes down to whether psychological treatment and psychotherapy are a medical course of treatment that the state can regulate, or whether it is a place where personal views and beliefs and opinions are protected and should be put ahead of the state's interests in making sure that the care being dispensed by licensed professionals to minors meets a certain standard."
He also raised concerns about the broader implications for professional licensing if the Court rules in favor of the plaintiff:
"If the plaintiffs win, then the Supreme Court will effectively be saying that there is a constitutional right to obtain a license and provide treatment that the state of Colorado — and the people of Colorado — have decided is harmful and dangerous."
The article also notes that Ross and other advocates view the law not as a restriction on free speech, but as a safeguard ensuring that mental health care for minors aligns with established medical standards and protects against ineffective or harmful treatments.
As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in one of its most closely watched cases this term, Ross's perspective reinforces the constitutional balancing act between First Amendment freedoms and the state's duty to regulate professional care in the public interest.
Read the full article at Washington Examiner using the link below (subscription may be required).
Resources
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
