Lawsuit seeks to overturn Michigan’s ban on conversion therapy for minors

A lawsuit was filed Friday in federal court seeking to overturn Michigan’s ban on conversion therapy for minors, which seeks to change the sexual orientation and gender identity of LGBTQ+ individuals, alleging it violates the free speech rights of Catholic counselors.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, was brought by the Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties on behalf of Emily McJones, a licensed therapist from Lansing, whose practice, Little Flower Counseling, provides “evidenced-based treatments from a perspective that is faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church, while loving and caring for each client.”

The lawsuit specifically targets House Bill 4616, which was signed into law by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in July 2023 and stated that a “mental health professional shall not engage in conversion therapy with a minor.” Violation of the statute subjects those professionals to disciplinary action and licensing sanctions.

In response to the lawsuit, Equality Michigan Executive Director Erin Knott said its goal of ending the ban will put kids’ lives at risk.

“House Bill 4616 is a suicide prevention bill, period. Protecting LGBTQ young people from conversion ‘therapy’ in Michigan is literally life-saving,” said Knott. “Michigan’s LGBTQ youth should be free from needless attacks and torture, and deserve to live in a state where they can be healthy, safe, and reach their full potential.”

The lawsuit names Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) Director Elizabeth Hertel, as well as Marlon Brown, director of the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) and Amy Gumbrecht, director of the Bureau of Professional Licensing within LARA. Also named are members of the Michigan Board of Counseling and the Michigan Board of Psychology.

The filing, which was assisted by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the same organization that successfully defended the right of Hobby Lobby to opt out of contraception coverage mandates under the Affordable Care Act, laid out the rationale for seeking to overturn the ban, claiming it violated the religious liberties of Catholic counselors.

“Plaintiffs believe that when a client comes to them and seeks to change her gender identity or gender expression to align with her biological sex, or seeks to change her behavior to refrain from acting on same-sex attraction, it is their ethical and religious duty to help that client live the life she desires to live,” stated the lawsuit. “By helping clients address underlying trauma and heal from past experiences, Plaintiffs have often seen clients change their behavior and gender expression in ways that better align with the clients’ own religious beliefs and the clients’ own goals for their lives — including by accepting and embracing their biological sex and by refraining from sexual activity outside of male-female marriage.”

McJones, quoted in a release by The Becket Fund, said she opened her counseling office to offer her clients “compassionate therapy that helps them live whole, integrated lives. But now Michigan officials are threatening to strip my license because I provide therapy rooted in my faith and the best available scientific evidence.” 

Conversion therapy, as defined by the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, “are interventions purported to alter same-sex attractions or an individual’s gender expression with the specific aim to promote heterosexuality as a preferable outcome.” 

The academy, as have most major health health institutions, say such therapies “lack scientific credibility and clinical utility. Additionally, there is evidence that such interventions are harmful.” That stance is shared by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as the American Psychological Association and the National Association of School Psychologists. 

However, the lawsuit claims the opposite, alleging that there is “no sound evidence” that treatments which affirms a client’s sexual preference or gender identity “provide any long-term benefits.” As proof, the suit extensively cites the highly controversial and politicized Cass Review, commissioned by England’s National Health Service, which concluded: “This is an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint. The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.”

However, the Cass Review has been the subject of intense debate since it was issued earlier this year with a host of medical organizations on both sides of the Atlantic either calling its conclusions into question, or outright condemning them as unfounded.

A paper published July 1 by Professor Anne Alstott of Yale Law School, Dr. Meredithe McNamara of the Yale School of Medicine, and seven other international scientists, determined the Cass Review did not evaluate evidence in a neutral and scientifically valid manner, and concluded that “the Review obscures key findings, misrepresents its own data, and is rife with misapplications of the scientific method. The Review deeply considers the possibility of gender-affirming interventions being given to someone who is not transgender, but without reciprocal consideration for transgender youth who undergo permanent, distressing physical changes when they do not receive timely care.”

The paper also noted the political nature of the document and predicted its use in legal proceedings like that filed Friday against Michigan’s conversion therapy ban.

“The Cass Review has already been cited in U.S. legal battles over transgender rights. It is likely to feature heavily in the months and years to come,” said the paper.

Additionally, a letter signed by more than two dozen British organizations, including the British Psychological Society and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, “agree that the practice of conversion therapy, whether in relation to sexual orientation or gender identity, is unethical and potentially harmful.”

Among the harms conversion therapy can inflict is placing LGBTQ+ youth at a statistically higher rate for self harm.

A 2020 report by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law found that lesbian, gay and bisexual youth who experienced conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to report multiple suicide attempts in the last year than their peers who hadn’t been in conversion therapy.

“The elevated odds of suicidality observed among young LGBTQ individuals exposed to SOGICE (sexual orientation or gender identity conversion efforts) underscore the detrimental effects of this unethical practice in a population that already experiences significantly greater risks for suicidality,” the report concluded.

State Rep. Felicia Brabec (D-Pittsfield Twp.) sponsored the bill banning conversion therapy.

“As a clinical psychologist, I cannot emphasize enough how dangerous this practice is and that to call it ‘therapy’ is misleading and treacherous,” said Brabec. 

The lawsuit makes several specific claims against Michigan’s conversion therapy ban. The first is that it violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, by restricting the speech Plaintiffs may engage in with minor clients and does so without providing a “objective, workable standards” as to what can be said and what cannot. It also claims that it violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, by unduly burdening the rights of religious adherents and treating comparable secular activity more favorably while also interfering with parents’ right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

The suit also alleges the ban violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to Due Process by offering no objective basis for what is allowed and what is prohibited and that “its vague terms invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”

The plaintiffs request a jury trial and seek a declaration that the conversion therapy ban is unconstitutional, as well as an injunction preventing its enforcement. It also asks for an award of damages, including attorney’s fees and costs.

This story was originally published by the Michigan Advance