Over the past month, the Supreme Court of the United States has consistently made decisions that threaten the LGBTQ+ community. These attacks are rooted in the rise of Christian nationalism, which appears to be bleeding into judicial reasoning.
The first major development emerged in early March, when the Court intervened in a lower court dispute over a California law concerning student gender identity. Rather than letting the lower courts fully deliberate on this constitutional question, maintaining the judicial branch system, the Supreme Court decided their authority overruled. The justices granted an emergency appeal from a conservative legal group on the constitutionality of a California law.
The California law, also known as the SAFETY Act, was implemented to give students authority over their gender identity inside the classroom. The law banned the automatic parental notification of a student’s changed gender expression or pronouns. It protected a student’s right to privacy and autonomy, preventing the potential outing to unsupportive families.
However, the Supreme Court deemed this law to be unconstitutional. With this law blocked, California schools can notify parents if their child identifies as transgender, without the consent of the student. The ruling stemmed from the protection of religious freedom, claiming religious parents have the right to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs. This religious protection now subjects queer youth to trauma and distress.
This pattern of LGBTQ+ judicial attacks continues into April. This past week, the Supreme Court protected conversion therapy, a harmful practice used in an attempt to change someone’s sexuality or gender identity.
Chiles v Salazar considered the constitutionality of a Colorado law banning conversion therapy. The petitioner, a Colorado licensed therapist, claimed that the law banning “talk” conversion therapy violates her freedom of speech. Neglecting the harm of conversion therapy, the Supreme Court ruled in the therapists favor in an 8 to 1 decision.
The majority opinion is reliant on the First Amendment, stating that the banning of a specific “opinion or perspective” is unconstitutional. However, this case is one of the Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection. With this ruling, the Supreme Court is declaring that the identity and protection of LGBTQ+ Americans, will never be anything more than an opinion or perspective.
Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson, the sole dissenter, offered a starkly different perspective. Her dissent is one that puts the protection of the person before the protection of the speech. She highlights the irreversible damage conversion therapy does to one’s identity, that nearly doubles the suicide rate for those who experience it.
The priorities of this court are clear. The past two rulings of the court on LGBTQ+ rights show that current Justices would rather protect religious and speech freedoms, than human rights. As these decisions reshape the legal landscape, their consequences will likely extend far beyond the courtroom, impacting the daily lives, safety, and well-being of LGBTQ+ Americans across the country.
