Committee reviews impact of U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Childs v. Salazar on local conversion-therapy ordinance
Loading...
Summary
An agency official told the committee the Supreme Court's decision in Childs v. Salazar treats Colorado's ban as viewpoint discrimination and limits enforceability as applied to talk therapy; staff recommended amending the local ordinance to clarify that it does not prohibit talk therapy.
An agency official briefed the City of Norman Council Oversight Committee on the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Childs v. Salazar for the city's conversion-therapy ordinance (chapter 8, article 3).
The presenter said the Supreme Court characterized Colorado's ban as viewpoint discrimination and instructed lower courts to apply strict scrutiny rather than the lower rational-basis standard the state courts had used. "The court characterized Colorado's ban as a viewpoint discrimination," the agency official said, and noted the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Tenth Circuit and the district court to evaluate the law under strict scrutiny.
The presenter explained the decision is an as-applied (not facial) ruling in Kaylee Childs's challenge and observed that the ruling likely means the ban, as applied to talk therapy, will be unenforceable in the Tenth Circuit. "Chapter 8 article 3 ... is unenforceable to the extent that it prohibits talk therapy," the presenter said, while adding the ordinance could still apply to non-talk interventions such as aversive physical interventions.
Committee members raised questions about the ordinance's text and enforcement: the ordinance makes it a violation for any provider defined in the cited state statute and includes enforcement provisions (8-302) carrying fines "between $50 and $750 and/or imprisonment not to exceed 6 days." The presenter recommended a simple ordinance amendment clarifying that the chapter does not prohibit talk therapy so officers and staff can identify what to investigate and not pursue criminal charges for talk-based counseling.
Members also asked whether the city's contract pass-through funds could go to providers who practice conversion therapy. The presenter said that restriction is not codified in the ordinance as written and offered to check whether contract language has been used in specific funding agreements.
The committee expressed support for returning a drafted amendment to clarify scope; if advanced, the presenter said the amendment would be processed as an ordinance change with first reading on consent and subsequent readings off consent.
The committee did not open any enforcement actions at the meeting; next steps are to draft clarifying language for council consideration.
