Supreme Court rules against Colorado law banning ‘conversion therapy’ for minors
Supreme Court (Walter Bibikow/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy” for minors as a likely violation of counselors’ free speech rights under the First Amendment.
LGBTQ groups, who have hailed conversion therapy bans as critical to the mental health of minors figuring out their identities during adolescence, say the decision will mean more kids are “traumatized” going forward.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, in the court’s opinion, said the law — enacted in 2019 to protect minors from efforts by mental health providers to change their sexual orientation or gender identity — “censors speech based on viewpoint” and must be subjected to the highest form of legal scrutiny, which a lower court had not applied.
“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same,” Gorsuch wrote.
“But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country,” he continued. “It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter.
“Our precedents do not compel this conclusion,” Jackson wrote. “Speech uttered for purposes of providing medical treatment may be restricted incidentally when the state reasonably regulates the speaker’s provision of medical treatments to patients.”
A Christian licensed therapist from Colorado Springs, Kaley Chiles, brought the legal challenge, alleging the law violates her free speech rights and prevents her from openly talking with clients about their desire to rid themselves of same-sex attractions or better align with their biological sex.
“Colorado law does not just regulate the content of Ms. Chiles’ speech. It goes a step further,” Gorsuch wrote, “prescribing what views she may and may not express.”
The decision sends the case back to a lower court for further review of the law.
Colorado will likely no longer be able to forbid state licensed providers from attempting to change a patient’s orientation through talk therapy.
“States cannot silence voluntary conversations that help young people seeking to grow comfortable with their bodies,” said Jim Campell, the attorney for Chiles who argued the case before the court. “The decision today is a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children.”
Conversion therapy has been widely discredited by major American mental health and medical organizations for decades. Half the states in the U.S. have outlawed the practice as ineffective and harmful to minors, often on a bipartisan basis. Those laws are now in question.
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said that more kids will “suffer” as a result of this decision.
“Today’s reckless decision means more American kids will suffer. The Court has weaponized free-speech in order to prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ bias over the safety, health and wellbeing of children,” Robinson said in a statement.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who has defended the state’s conversion therapy ban in court, called Tuesday’s ruling a “setback for Colorado’s efforts to protect children and families from harmful and discredited mental health practices.”
“For generations, states have set and enforced standards to ensure that licensed professionals provide safe and appropriate care,” Weiser said in a statement. “We strongly disagree with the court’s reasoning and are carefully reviewing the decision to assess its full impact on Colorado law and on our responsibility to protect consumers and patients.”
Voter in voting booth. (Hill Street Studios/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — While the Democratic National Committee chose not to release its after-action report on the 2024 election, one prominent Democratic group is sharing feedback from a group of influential voters.
To some of them, Democrats can seem condescending, elitist and out-of-touch. And to win them over, candidates don’t need to take a specific policy position, but should communicate directly, authentically and with empathy.
Drawn from in-depth interviews and focus groups with more than 100 voters from battleground House districts and states, the “Baseline Report” released by MD PAC, a political action committee working to reshape Democratic Party, aims to help candidates and campaigns connect with voters who supported Joe Biden in 2020 and either voted for Donald Trump or stayed home four years later.
The organization is affiliated with Majority Democrats, one of several groups working with candidates to remake and redefine the party’s image ahead of the midterms.
“It’s not exactly a state secret that something went very wrong for Democrats in 2024,” Lis Smith, a senior adviser to Majority Democrats, told ABC News. “The responsible thing isn’t to bury our heads in the sand, it’s to figure out how to win their votes so we can move forward.”
Across the entire cohort, voters shared a sense of exhaustion and emotional burnout. They view both Democrats and Republicans skeptically, and they feel “unseen, unheard, and unrepresented by the federal government,” the group notes in its report.
According to the analysis and the group’s briefing on the findings, voters across the cohort felt a sense of economic strain, and a fear that the “floor could drop at any time,” as one of them told the group.
In 2024, Trump and Republicans won over a larger share of voters without college degrees, performing 4 points better than he did in 2020 among voters who are more economically vulnerable, according to ABC News exit polls.
Republicans also won more than half of voters whose total family income in 2023 was between $30,000 and $49,999, and $50,000 to $99,999, according to ABC News exit polls for the House of Representatives in 2024.
Smith recalled a conversation with a Democratic senator after the 2024 election that underscored how the party didn’t connect with voters’ concerns about the economy.
“They told me, ‘I would hear from voters about price of eggs and I thought it was a Fox News talking point,'” she said. “That suggested to me that a lot of members of Congress and their staffs are insulated from what voters are feeling. And this is a way to break through that.”
At a time when Democrats are grappling over the party’s positions on the U.S. relationship with Israel and whether to call for the abolishing or reform of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Majority Democrats’ report doesn’t recommend a specific set of positions for Democrats to adopt.
“Voters were not demanding ideological purity. They expected leaders to be flawed, change their minds, or even contradict themselves. What mattered was why — and whether the shift seemed honest,” the report reads.
While the report doesn’t dig into what went wrong for the party in 2024 and how Biden’s unsuccessful run for a second term impacted the fall results, the voters who participated expressed a desire to see politicians focus on issues that matter to them and show a willingness to disagree with their party.
“When voters were overwhelmingly telling us Joe Biden was too old to run for reelection, the Democratic powers that be responded, ‘Don’t believe your lying eyes,'” Smith said.
She also pointed to Democrats’ defending the Biden administration’s economic record by saying inflation was lower in the U.S. than in other countries.
“Democrats came off too often as defenders of the status quo,” Smith said. “That missed the mark, and going forward what we recommend is that Democrats understand the real, deep frustrations with economic and political systems.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis attends the Boom Belt: A Return to First Principles in Public Markets conference on April 7, 2026, in Miami, Florida. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday unveiled a proposed new congressional map for the Sunshine State that his office indicates could let Republicans flip up to four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
It’s a move that could help the party gain seats and counter Democrats’ recent redistricting victory in Virginia, if the map passes the Legislature and survives likely legal challenges. But some in the state are concerned about how a new map might backfire on the GOP. It is also another volley in mid-decade redistricting around the country, as another state starts the process usually only done once a decade in the wake of Texas, California and other states doing so.
The new map, provided to ABC News by the governor’s office, appears to aim to allow Republicans to flip up to four seats in the U.S. House, leaving just four Democratic-held districts in the state.
The office did not provide any details on how it conducted its analysis, and DeSantis said the redraw is about representation. “Florida got shortchanged in the 2020 Census, and we’ve been fighting for fair representation ever since. … Our new map for 2026 makes good on my promise to conduct mid-decade redistricting, and it more fairly represents the makeup of Florida today,” DeSantis told Fox News Digital, which was first to report on the new map being unveiled.
Dave Wasserman, senior editor and elections analyst for The Cook Political Report, wrote on Monday that the map appears to target Democratic Reps. Darren Soto, Kathy Castor, Jared Moskowitz and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Soto wrote on X, “Gerrymander or Dummymander? This map is an absolutely unlawful violation of the Florida Constitution. The Legislature should reject it. The courts should strike it down. That being said, there are 12+ seats that Democrats could still win under this map in this cycle.”
The speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Daniel Perez, confirmed in a memo on Monday that the state House had received the new map and would begin considering it on Tuesday.
An aggressive approach
DeSantis has said Florida’s potential redistricting has nothing to do with Virginia’s efforts to redraw its congressional map, which passed last week and could net Democrats four congressional seats if it survives court challenges.
Some within the Republican Party have said Florida should aggressively redraw its map to counter Virginia, although others have hedged.
President Donald Trump, for instance, was asked by Fox News in an interview on Sunday about his reaction to Virginia’s redistricting and if Florida should ‘make a go at it.’ (Florida is Trump’s home state.) “I do, but that Virginia case is terrible,” Trump responded.
A Republican strategist in Florida told ABC News, “I think the people who are interested in taking the most aggressive, fighteresque approach … feel a bit emboldened” by what happened in Virginia. “The people taking a more strategic, long-term take on this whole process — I don’t think what happened in Virginia changes their opinion at all.”
Democrats ready to counter
DeSantis had called a special session that’s currently set to begin Tuesday that will include considering mid-decade redistricting, although he had previously delayed the initial date of the session by a week and expanded it to add other issues.
The Legislature also has a complex relationship with the governor, and legislators have been relatively tight-lipped over how it will vote.
The governor has spoken often about mid-decade redistricting in Florida in recent months, but framed his thoughts in terms of Florida needing to redraw its maps due to population reasons — not for political gain.
But Democrats, flush off of a victory in Virginia, say that they’re ready to counter GOP moves. The Virginia election’s certification is currently being litigated in courts.
Could it backfire?
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, during a press conference last Wednesday, called potential redistricting in Florida a “DeSantis dummymander” that would backfire on the GOP by weakening seats they currently hold.
“Our message to Florida Republicans is, ‘F around and find out’,” Jeffries said. “If they go down the road of a ‘DeSantis Dummymander’, the Florida Republicans are going to find themselves in the same situation as Texas Republicans who are on the run right now.”
DeSantis, responding to Jeffries on Wednesday without bringing up redistricting, taunted, “There’s nothing that could be better for Republicans in Florida than to see Hakeem Jeffries everywhere around this state … please, be my guest to come down in Florida. We would love to have you.”
Some Republicans, however, have openly expressed concerns that any new map in Florida would endanger GOP-held districts because it would weaken those districts politically as it tries to flip other ones, due to how voters could be moved around or respond to redistricting. It’s a key concern in Florida for the GOP, where Hispanic voters — a major bloc — who had moved towards the GOP in 2024’s elections now appear to be moving towards Democrats.
“Don’t do it. I’ve said it from the beginning. I’ve been around enough reapportionments to know it’s a slippery slope,” Florida Rep. Daniel Webster told Punchbowl News last week.
And Florida Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar told NBC News last week, “Look, I may be at a disadvantage, because my lines in district number 27 in the state of Florida may be moved, but there’s nothing I can do about it. And I always look at the bright side. This is American democracy. This is the American electoral system.”
The law and Florida’s Constitution
There are legal considerations at play as well that were not the case in other states such as Texas, California and Missouri that redistricted — as Florida’s state Constitution also has strict restrictions on redrawing constitutional maps for political gain, thanks to provisions known as the Fair Districts Amendments that voters approved in 2010.
The state’s Constitution says that “In establishing congressional district boundaries … No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.”
“It imposes an explicit prohibition on intentionally redrawing districts to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent,” Jonathan Marshfield, a state constitutional law expert at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, told ABC News.
“And so this is significant in Florida, because the United States Supreme Court hasheld … that these were sort of partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable in federal court; [there’s] essentially no recourse in the same way in federal court as there is in a state court. One of the challenges, I can imagine, is that these new congressional maps are going to be challenged as not complying with the Fair District Amendment of 2010.”
Marshfield added that “the law is structured such that challenges will, in fact, focus on their actual intent in drawing the lines where they draw them. And so that is a legally relevant inquiry that will be investigated in the course of the litigation.
DeSantis did not address the amendments in his comments to Fox News. But his general counsel, David Axelman, in a letter sent to the Florida Legislature along with the proposed map, argued that the amendments themselves may be unconstitutional.
“Florida’s representation in the U.S. House has also been distorted by considerations of race. Passed in 2010, the Fair Districts Amendments (FDA) to the Florida Constitution require the Legislature to account for race when drawing congressional districts … This requires the use of race in redistricting-something that the U.S. Supreme Court has signaled is unconstitutional.”
A strategist working with Florida House Democrats told ABC News that Democrats in the Legislature don’t have procedural mechanisms or leeway to slow down the process of passing a map, unlike in Texas in 2025 where Democrats were able to depart the state and break “quorum” in order to hold up legislation. But the strategist said that won’t matter, and that it doesn’t matter if the new map benefits Republicans or not.
A strategist working with Florida House Democrats told ABC News that Democrats in the Legislature don’t have the same procedural mechanism or leeway to slow down the process of passing a map, unlike in Texas in 2025 where Democrats were able to depart the state and break “quorum” in order to hold up legislation. But the strategist said that won’t matter, and that it doesn’t matter if the new map benefits Republicans or not.
“Regardless of if it backfires or not, it’s still illegal,” the strategist argued.
But Marshfield said that those drawing the map will likely have taken the amendment into account: “I’m sure in light of that, that the people drawing the lines, I would assume — I think the courts assume — that they have taken care to comply with the law, so that they are taking care to draw the lines in ways that comply with that amendment.”
Todd Lyons, acting director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), speaks during a news conference in Nogales, Arizona, US, on Wednesday, Feb. 4, 2026. (Ash Ponders/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Amid a funding fight on Capitol Hill and polls showing more than 60% of Americans disapproving of how U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is enforcing immigration laws, senior immigration officials will testify Tuesday before the House Department of Homeland Security Committee.
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, Customs and Border Protection (CPB) Commissioner Rodney Scott are to appear in the first of two hearings on oversight of the two agencies. Joseph Edlow, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is also expected to appear.
The three are scheduled to testify before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Thursday.
Tuesday’s testimony will be their first since two fatal shootings of U.S. citizens by federal law enforcement officers in Minneapolis and since the partial drawdown of federal officers from Minnesota.
“In order to get [Department of Homeland Security funding] done, I think we need to get some questions asked and make everybody feel comfortable about what ICE, USCIS, and CBP are doing, what their goals are, and what they’re trying to accomplish,” House Homeland Security Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y. said on the “Julie Mason Show” over the weekend. “I think having these directors there will give them the opportunity to talk about the training that their officers receive. There was a huge investment to hire more ICE and CBP officers that came through the One Big Beautiful Bill. It’s going to be good to have these directors giving answers and setting the record straight.”
Democrats have been calling for more accountability for ICE and CBP. They have also called on Department of Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem, who oversees the immigration agencies, to resign, which she has said she will not.
In a statement released Monday, Rep. Bennie Thompson, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the hearing “is going to be just the start of a reckoning for the Trump administration and its weaponization of government against our country.”
“Donald Trump and Kristi Noem must be held accountable for the immigration operations creating chaos in our communities, terrorizing people, and hurting U.S. citizens and immigrants alike,” he continued. “I hope my Republican colleagues will remember that our job is to conduct oversight, not cover for Donald Trump and his out-of-control administration, which is running roughshod over Americans’ rights, killing U.S. citizens, and threatening our very democracy.”
Polls show Americans disapprove of how the agencies are conducting President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement operation.
A Quinnipiac poll released earlier this month found that 63% of voters disapprove of the way ICE is enforcing immigration laws and 34% approve — a lower rating than the agency received in a January Quinnipiac poll, when 57% disapproved and 40% approved.
And an Ipsos poll from early February found that 62% of Americans said efforts by ICE officers to deal with unauthorized immigration goes “too far.” That is up slightly from 58% who said the same in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted the week before. The share of Republicans saying ICE efforts go too far was up 10 points, from 20% to 30%.
Funding for DHS is set to expire on Friday if there is no deal on DHS reforms Democrats want passed for CBP and ICE.
In a letter last week to Republican leaders, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer laid out 10 key demands from Democrats on DHS funding, including calling for judicial warrants before agents can enter private property, a ban on ICE agents wearing face masks, requiring the use of body cameras and new laws for use-of-force standards.
Republican Sen. Katie Britt, who has been deputized by leadership to lead talks on behalf of Senate Republicans, ripped into the Democrats’ proposal in a post on X last week.
“Democrats’ newest proposal is a ridiculous Christmas list of demands for the press,” Britt said. “This is NOT negotiating in good faith, and it’s NOT what the American people want. They continue to play politics to their radical base at the expense of the safety of Americans.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters Monday evening that Republicans are preparing a counteroffer to Democrats’ proposal that could be made available soon.
