Sixth Circuit says Michigan law likely violates First Amendment by discriminating against religious viewpoint
TLDR (Too Long / Didn’t Read Summary)
On December 17, 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court and ordered a preliminary injunction against Michigan’s ban on talk therapy that seeks to help minors change sexual orientation or gender identity. The court found that the law likely violates the First Amendment by discriminating based on viewpoint—allowing speech supporting gender transitions but banning speech affirming clients’ biological sex. The decision emphasizes that counseling through speech is constitutionally protected. The case returns to the lower court, and the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on a similar case by June 2026.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday, December 17, 2025, reversed a lower court ruling and ordered Michigan to halt enforcement of a 2023 law that bans licensed therapists from offering counseling to minors aimed at changing their sexual orientation or gender identity—even with parental consent.
The ruling, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale Counties v. Whitmer, found that the law likely violates the First Amendment by penalizing speech based on its content and viewpoint. It marks a rare federal court victory for religious plaintiffs challenging so-called “conversion therapy” bans.
The law, HB 4616, prohibits licensed therapists from engaging in any practice that “seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity,” including verbal counseling. However, it expressly allows counseling that assists a minor “undergoing a gender transition.”
The plaintiffs, a Catholic counseling ministry and an individual therapist, said they offer talk therapy guided by their religious beliefs and tailored to clients’ goals. They argued that the Michigan law censors their ability to help minors live in accordance with their faith and biological sex.
Judge Raymond Kethledge, writing for the majority, agreed. “HB 4616 is subject to the strictest of scrutiny,” the court ruled. “The Michigan law forbids counseling that ‘seeks to change’ a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity to align with the child’s religious beliefs or biological sex … but permits counseling that supports a gender transition” .
The court held that Michigan’s law constitutes viewpoint discrimination because it bans only one side of a controversial issue. It noted that the plaintiffs offer speech-based therapy only with parental and minor consent, without any coercion or physical intervention.
In contrast, the district court had sided with the state, characterizing the therapy as “conduct” rather than speech. The Sixth Circuit rejected that logic, citing Supreme Court precedent that protects even counseling-based speech. “The discussions that HB 4616 forbids involve the expression of ideas in ways that surgery or flu shots do not,” the court stated .
The ruling orders the district court to issue a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of HB 4616 against the plaintiffs while the case proceeds. The panel split 2-1, with Judge Bloomekatz dissenting, arguing that the state has a right to regulate what it considers medical treatment, especially for minors.
Michigan officials had asked the court to pause proceedings while the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to decide a similar case, Chiles v. Salazar. The majority declined to wait, stating that the plaintiffs face an immediate constitutional harm.
The case now returns to the district court for further proceedings. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in Chiles v. Salazar by the end of June 2026, which could affect the broader legal landscape on similar state laws.
Case Caption and Decision Date
Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale Counties, et al. v. Whitmer, et al., No. 25-1105 (Dec. 17, 2025)
Commentary
This decision is a textbook example of how viewpoint discrimination can render an otherwise well-intentioned regulation unconstitutional. Michigan framed HB 4616 as a professional regulation, but the court emphasized that when the line between speech and conduct blurs, especially in counseling, the First Amendment must be carefully applied.
The state argued that therapy is conduct, not speech. But the plaintiffs’ therapy involved only spoken words. The court noted that labeling speech as “treatment” does not exempt it from First Amendment scrutiny, especially when the law explicitly bans a particular message. Courts have long recognized that professional speech, like legal or psychological advice, still receives protection.
The ruling’s real force lies in its treatment of content and viewpoint distinctions. By permitting counseling that supports gender transition while banning counseling that affirms biological sex, the law, the court held, favors one ideology over another. That’s the essence of viewpoint discrimination.
Though the Supreme Court may soon weigh in, this decision may carry lasting weight. The court’s clarity on viewpoint-based censorship, even in professional settings, adds a strong voice to the national legal debate over how states can regulate counseling without suppressing disfavored views.
If you found this article helpful, please like, share, and subscribe to the ReligiousLiberty.TV blog at religiouslibertytv.substack.com. Subscribing gives you early access to breaking news, legal analysis, and updates on religious liberty cases as they happen.
AI Disclaimer
This summary was generated with the assistance of AI and is based solely on the contents of the official court opinion. It does not include any legal advice or outside commentary not found in the source material.
Legal Disclaimer
This article does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a licensed attorney for legal guidance specific to your situation.
Potential SEO Tags
conversion therapy ban, Catholic Charities Michigan, Sixth Circuit ruling, First Amendment speech, religious liberty counseling
Source: ReligiousLibertyTV on Substack
