Supreme Court to Weigh Free Speech Fight Over Conversion Therapy Ban
United States: The US Supreme Court will take on several major legal disputes in its 2025–2026 term, including a challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy, a fight over how long ballots can be counted after Election Day, and a high-stakes Voting Rights Act case. The justices return from their summer break in October and have already scheduled a packed docket.
Conversion Therapy Ban Challenge
One of the most closely watched cases will be Chiles v. Salazar, set for October 7. Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor in Colorado, is challenging the state’s 2019 law that prohibits conversion therapy for minors. She says the ban limits her ability to counsel clients with gender dysphoria from a faith-based perspective.
The law forbids counseling aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity but allows counseling that affirms same-sex attraction or gender transition. Chiles argues this is “viewpoint discrimination” and violates her First Amendment right to free speech, according to the Washington Times.
Ballot Counting Dispute in Illinois
On October 8, the justices will hear a case brought by federal candidates against Illinois’ law that allows ballots to be counted for two weeks after Election Day. The challengers, represented by Judicial Watch, claim the rule conflicts with federal law, which sets Election Day as the first Tuesday in November.
Lower courts dismissed the case, saying the candidates hadn’t suffered enough harm to sue. The Illinois State Board of Elections maintains that states have the constitutional authority to set their own election rules.
Voting Rights Act and Louisiana’s Congressional Map
On October 15, the court will revisit a dispute over Louisiana’s congressional districts. The state’s current map includes two majority-Black districts out of six, shifting the delegation from 5–1 Republican to 4–2.
Opponents say the redistricting was done to increase minority voting power in line with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting, as reported by the Washington Times.
Critics warn that if the challengers win, it could weaken the Act and make it more difficult for minority groups to challenge maps they perceive as unfair. The cases are Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais.
Death Penalty and IQ Limits
In November, the court will hear Hamm v. Smith, involving an Alabama death row inmate who argues his IQ is too low for execution. The issue centers on how courts evaluate multiple IQ scores when deciding claims under Atkins v. Virginia (2002), which barred the execution of intellectually disabled individuals. Smith has recorded various IQ scores, some above and some below the 70-point threshold typically used to define intellectual disability. Lower courts ruled in his favor, but the state says all his scores were above 70.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments but is unlikely to issue rulings until the end of its term in June 2026. Four justices must agree to hear a case before it is placed on the court’s calendar.
