Michigan’s Conversion-Therapy Ban to Be Probed by Sixth Circuit

The Sixth Circuit is pushing forward with putting Michigan’s ban on gender and sexuality conversion therapy for minors to the test, despite the US Supreme Court hearing arguments on a similar law two weeks ago.

The issues the three-judge panel will explore Thursday in a Cincinnati courtroom may end up being like the free-speech ones the justices reckoned with in oral arguments for and against Colorado’s similar ban.

But legal observers said the two cases about what advocates say could be a useful therapeutic tool for LGBTQ+ children who desire a change—and what opponents decry as a widely-discredited form of treatment—aren’t totally alike. The lesser-known Michigan case gives the panel a chance to probe other arguments, among them that the law is too vague, selectively targets religious speech, and undermines the right of parents to raise their children in a religious manner.

“Even if the Supreme Court said these laws don’t violate free-speech rights, the institutions have filed the other claims as well,” said Christy Mallory, the interim executive director and legal director at the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles’ law school.

Others say it may be a sign that at least some of the conservative-leaning court’s judges are inclined to block Michigan’s law, which went into effect last year. A district court judge declined to block the law while a suit is pending, which the plaintiffs are challenging on appeal.

The case is one of several similar ones that made their way through the courts over conversion therapy, which 27 states fully or partially ban.

“I think what we’re seeing is a movement to bring these sorts of cases, because the current SCOTUS doesn’t seem to be in any way binding itself to precedent,” said Frank Ravitch, a Michigan State University law professor.

Neither a spokesperson for Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) nor the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the plaintiffs, provided comment.

No Preliminary Injunction

The law prohibits mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy—defined as “any practice or treatment by a mental health professional that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity"—with a minor.

Michigan regulators said they’ve taken no disciplinary action under the law.

Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale Counties, as well as Lansing counselor Emily McJones, sued last year to overturn the ban, saying it violates their free-speech and other rights. They believe that sex is assigned at birth and that marriage is between a man and woman.

Michigan officials say they can’t sue because they didn’t show impending disciplinary action because of the new law, and because the law regulates professional conduct, not speech. Their brief argues a case over Colorado’s law heard by the Supreme Court on Oct 6, Chiles v. Salazar—which appeared to go well for the ban’s opponents—“presents an identical claim to a nearly identical state statute.” They asked the Sixth Circuit to wait to hold oral arguments until after Chiles was decided.

Despite that argument, the court decided in September to proceed. It said, however, that both sides may argue on Thursday whether the judges should wait to rule until the Supreme Court does.

“I think the fact that they’re moving ahead with the oral argument even after Chiles probably suggests that they think the district court erred,” said Ryan Thoreson, a professor at the University of Cincinnati’s law school.

New Questions

Thursday’s panel includes President George W. Bush-appointed Judge Raymond M. Kethledge, Trump-appointed Judge Joan L. Larsen, and Judge Rachel S. Bloomekatz, a Biden appointee.

Heather Johnson, an adjunct professor at Michigan State University’s law school, said the judges may treat the hearing differently because the appeal centers on a preliminary injunction denial, not the ban’s merits. She was skeptical that the court would overturn the trial judge’s ruling, though noted that it depended on the panel.

“Courts tend to favor leaving the status quo, because why are we going to change it while we decide a case to then change it back?” Johnson said.

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit judges may also want to spend time probing the other arguments the ban’s opponents say spell doom for the law.

“I think that the attorneys in this case are thinking, ‘well, if Chiles loses, then we would still have the vagueness and religion arguments here,” Ravitch said.

The case is Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale Counties v. Whitmer, 6th Cir., No. 25-1105, oral arguments scheduled 10/23/25.