In Skrmetti, SCOTUS painstakingly framed TN's law as restricting treatment for certain purposes. Now the CO's purpose (protecting minors) is framed as seeking to "dictate what particular 'opinion or perspective' individuals may express" while leaving out it applies only in the therapeutic context

Therapy’s Conversion — Chiles v. Salazar’s Threat to Mental Health Treatment and Standards of Care | NEJM Chiles v. Salazar, a challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy, could seriously affect LGBTQ+ health, mental health professionals, and the legal relevance of standards of care.

SCOTUS in Chiles v. Salazar: talk therapy isn't health care!

Siding with a therapist equating conversion "therapy" to chats in a book club has implications for LGBTQ+ health, authority/validity of mental health professionals, & establishing/enforcing standards of care www.nejm.org/doi/full/10....

Chiles, Dobbs, Skrmetti, & others show SCOTUS “weighing in on when, why and how politicians can say, ‘Here’s the kind of health care you can give and here’s the kind of health care you can’t give.’”

🚨Anyone in medicine or public health, or who believes in evidence-based care, this is not a drill‼️

Therapy’s Conversion — Chiles v. Salazar’s Threat to Mental Health Treatment and Standards of Care | NEJM Chiles v. Salazar, a challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy, could seriously affect LGBTQ+ health, mental health professionals, and the legal relevance of standards of care.

Another great piece grappling w/ the tension of talk therapy as speech vs medical treatment, the threats this decision poses for states’ ability to enforce standards of care, and how this decision may undermine Chiles’s very own profession. @michaelrulrich.bsky.social www.nejm.org/doi/full/10....

Govt's final point really seems to highlight the problem with Bruen, arguing against habitual drunkard requiring how often is enough for habitual, how much consumption is equivalent to drunkard, how much danger must you pose

Yes, this is exactly why Bruen is--in the words of Dobbs--unworkable

a woman in a green shirt is sitting in front of a bookshelf . ALT: a woman in a green shirt is sitting in front of a bookshelf .

Sotomayor: Alito's concern over jury determinations is pointless and dumb because the statute requires it for prosecution and conviction, right?

I think Alito has asked essentially the same question over and over and over again for the last 20 minutes

a group of young men are sitting together and one of them is wearing a panda movie shirt ALT: a group of young men are sitting together and one of them is wearing a panda movie shirt

ACB says she has NEVER heard of ayahuasca and asked if it was real

Hemani: the principle from the historical distinction between drinkers and habitual drunkards is that govt didn't want to sweep up any and all regular users

KBJ: but isn't your point that even if Congress had done that assessment for danger with regard to each substance and guns, Bruen says that does not matter because it is about historical analogs not simply deferring to Congressional determinations

(I cannot wait to read KBJ's upcoming 2A opinions)

Sotomayor: govt said dangerousness relative to guns was not made for each substance, so doesn't that give away the game?

Hemani: this is why individual assessments are needed

Hemani repeatedly raising civil commitment as a similar law that is facially valid but requires individual determination that could, in some circumstances, be invalid

a man wearing glasses and a green and white shirt looks at the camera ALT: a man wearing glasses and a green and white shirt looks at the camera

Kagan claims she doesn't know much about ayahuasca....big, if true

Hemani: principle underlying habitual drunkards (losing self-control, unable to care for themselves, etc) should be applied to all drugs and some might be similar and some might not

Hemani's atty now up, distinguishing between historical approach to people who drank regularly and people who qualified as habitual drunkards

KBJ is concerned Bruen & Rahimi allow inconsistent results--pointing out the govt was just there arguing against Hawaii's concealed carry restriction but for this restriction with historical laws that seem unrelated in each case

KBJ: your principle is so general (dangerous people could be disarmed) that it boils back down to what Congress determines qualifies someone as dangerous. And if we're not supposed to simply trust what Congress says, then how do we evaluate without means-ends contemporary analysis?

KBJ's disdain for the Bruen test is so apparent, but it comes through what seems to be a genuine effort to figure out what the hell it requires

a woman from schitts creek says me too girl in yellow ALT: a woman from schitts creek says me too girl in yellow

KBJ: maybe I don't understand how the tests work anymore

a man is reading a newspaper about holmes the half ALT: a man is reading a newspaper about holmes the half

ACB then drops a NYT article reference to dangers of THC, so yeah, she reads the news

ACB seems be searching for the principle from the historical laws to apply today (based on Rahimi) and is asking whether it is the risk of violence and dangerous behavior? Or is it the illegality?

a man sits at a table with a sign that says hon. brett m. kavanugh ALT: a man sits at a table with a sign that says hon. brett m. kavanugh

Justice I like beer...I mean Kavanaugh wants more elaboration on why alcohol is different than marijuana

Gorsuch: you're saying "unlawful user" in statute means habitual, but then why have the second part about "addict"

Govt: they can overlap, but also could have an unlawful/habitual user that is not necessarily addicted

Kagan asks about any difference between public safety and public order, especially in regard to historical laws

Govt says civil commitment was about safety and vagrancies mroe about order

a man wearing a dare to resist drug and violence t-shirt holds a bottle of hot sauce ALT: a man wearing a dare to resist drug and violence t-shirt holds a bottle of hot sauce

Did the govt just talk about gateway drugs? I feel like I'm back in elementary school

Make DARE great again?

Govt makes clear that casual bar drinkers are safe but regular use of marijuana at parties are not

This has quickly devolved into the age old booze v. weed argument

a woman is holding two boxes of belina juice and says i brought juice boxes . ALT: a woman is holding two boxes of belina juice and says i brought juice boxes .

Finally Alito speaks up to go over when various drugs were "created" and asks about the difference between booze and drugs historically and culturally, but, surprisingly, did not go as far back as turning water to wine or consuming the blood of Christ

Most of the argument so far: what does Bruen mean? How do Bruen and Rahimi make sense together? Why are we doing this to ourselves? How could we ever know what founders thought about substance use and how to apply it today when they said 8 whiskeys was not habitual or dangerous?

Govt argues using habitual as proxy for addict is sufficient but KBJ says Bruen test doesn't allow this sort of assessment of and alteration of historical policy judgments of who was dangerous which was well beyond who the law is being applied to today

Govt raises Rahimi's use of historical laws for supporting categorical declarations of dangerousness

This makes me wonder whether the Court will use this case as an opportunity to alter Rahimi in any way