The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday, Oct. 7 in Chiles v. Salazar, which concerns a challenge to Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” – treatment intended to change a client’s sexual orientation or gender identity – for young people. Kaley Chiles, a therapist in Colorado Springs and a practicing Christian, argues that the ban violates her right to free speech because it imposes “a gag order on counselors.” But Colorado counters that the ban merely regulates the treatments that mental health professionals can provide because conversion therapy has been found to be “unsafe and ineffective.”  

The law at the center of the case is known as Minor Conversion Therapy Law. Passed in 2019, it prohibits mental health professions from providing clients under the age of 18 with conversion therapy, although that bar does not apply to someone who is “engaged in the practice of religious ministry.”

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Oct. 7 in Barrett v. United States. Dwayne Barrett – along with others – committed several armed robberies, culminating in one in which a victim who tried to thwart the robbery was shot to death by one of Barrett’s coconspirators. He was convicted at a jury trial in 2013 under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and (j) for his role in the shooting, as well as for other offenses. 

Major Questions is a recurring series by Adam White, which analyzes the court’s approach to administrative law, agencies, and the lower courts.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

Last week, the Supreme Court took up Trump v. Slaughter, on whether presidents have constitutional power to fire the heads of the Federal Trade Commission without cause. The case centers on the court’s 1936 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a landmark precedent allowing Congress to insulate certain agency heads against full presidential control.

Will Humphrey’s Executor be overturned? So far, that has been the conventional narrative around the Slaughter case. But the situation is much more nuanced, because Humphrey’s Executor itself was more nuanced.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday announced that it will hear oral arguments in January on a request from the Trump administration to allow the president to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. In a brief, unsigned order, the justices delayed their decision on the administration’s plea to pause a ruling by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that keeps Cook in office despite President Donald Trump’s efforts to remove her from the board.

Berk v. Choy, to be argued on Oct. 6, surely will be the Supreme Court case of the year for medical professionals. At issue in the case is the extent to which a set of common state statutes designed to stem medical malpractice litigation apply in federal court. If they don’t apply in federal court, victims who have a way to get into federal court will have a much easier time pursuing litigation against doctors than those who cannot.