“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case
Michigan’s ban on conversion therapy for gay teens was challenged by Catholic Charities.
What happened in this case?
In 2023, after careful review of the medical evidence, the Michigan legislature determined that conversion therapy, in which gay people are subjected to verbal intervention by mental health professionals (LMHPs) to try to change their sexual orientation, is harmful at least as to minors and falls below the standard of care. Following some 26 other states, Michigan accordingly decided to ban LMHPs from performing conversion therapy on minors.
Catholic Charities challenged the law as unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment, claiming that the treatment it regulates consists almost entirely of speech. They sought a preliminary injunction allowing them to provide conversion therapy while the case was underway, but that motion was denied. They appealed that denial to the Sixth Circuit, resulting in a decision in December 2025 in Catholic Charities v Whitmer, by George W Bush Judge Raymond Kethledge, Donald Trump Judge Joan Larsen, and Joseph Biden Judge Rachel Bloomekatz.
What did Trump judge Larsen and Bush judge Kethledge decide?
Judge Kethledge wrote a 2-1 decision joined by Trump judge Larsen that reversed the district court and directed that it grant a preliminary injunction in favor of Catholic Charities. They agreed with the view that conversion therapy by LMHPs is protected by the First Amendment. They decided the case even though the Supreme Court is expected to decide the constitutionality of a similar Colorado law this term in Chiles v. Salazar.
What did Judge Bloomekatz say in dissent?
Judge Bloomekatz firmly dissented. She strongly argued that, based on past precedent and practice, the court should not have decided the case at all until the Supreme Court decided the pending Chiles case presenting the same issues.
On the merits, in accord with past precedent, she would have upheld the Michigan law as a legitimate regulation of the practice of medicine that burdens speech but is warranted by intermediate scrutiny and should not be preliminarily enjoined.
Why is the result harmful?
Trump judge Larsen’s deciding vote obviously harms Michigan and gay teens by stopping, as least temporarily,the state’s regulation of conversion therapy. How long that injury lasts depends on how the Supreme Court resolves similar issues in the Chiles litigation. Also depending on what the Supreme Court does, the Sixth Circuit ruling may set a dangerous precedent by insulating other forms of psychotherapy and medical treatment from regulation because of the First Amendment.
The decision also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.