This is the latest installment in our Constitutional Showdown series by Jeff Bayard, where we examine major court battles over religious liberty, free speech, and parental rights through a biblical worldview and originalist constitutional lens. These cases will shape American law for generations—and Christians must understand what’s at stake. Our approach: reject partisan extremes and apply the **Third Way**—< biblical principles that honor both truth and justice.
Yesterday, a federal appeals court delivered a major victory for religious liberty—and for parents seeking counseling aligned with their faith. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled 2-1 that Michigan’s ban on “conversion therapy” violates the First Amendment rights of therapists and counselors.
The ruling protects Catholic counselor Emily McJones and Catholic Charities from losing their licenses for providing therapy rooted in Catholic teaching. More importantly, it protects families’ right to seek counseling that helps children accept their biological sex—rather than being forced down a path of medical transition.
The stakes? Whether states can mandate ideological conformity in private therapy sessions. Whether Christian counselors can practice according to their conscience. Whether parents can raise children according to biblical values.
A federal court just said: The government doesn’t get to decide.
Meet Emily McJones: Fighting for Kids in Crisis
Emily McJones didn’t set out to become the face of a constitutional battle. She just wanted to help kids.
After graduating with honors from Moody Theological Seminary in 2013 with a Master’s in Counseling Psychology, Emily worked for years as a crisis therapist for suicidal teens. In 2020, she opened Little Flower Counseling in downtown Lansing, Michigan—named after Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, her patron saint.
At Little Flower, Emily integrates evidence-based psychotherapy with Catholic teaching. She believes God created human beings male and female. She believes children struggling with gender dysphoria need compassionate care—not a rush toward irreversible medical procedures.
Emily’s approach: Talk therapy. Explore underlying issues. Address trauma. Help children work through distress. If possible, help them accept their bodies without hormones or surgery.
“I opened Little Flower to offer those who come through my doors compassionate therapy that helps them live whole, integrated lives,” Emily said.
Then Michigan passed a law threatening to strip her license.
A Convert’s Journey
Emily’s story is remarkable. Raised Protestant, she converted to Catholicism in 2017 after years of prayer and study. She joined the Church on October 8—the octave of Saint Thérèse.
Shortly after, Emily made a pilgrimage to Lourdes. She had lived with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, severe migraines, seizures, 20 food allergies, and celiac disease her entire life. She was in constant, intense pain.
At Lourdes, she experienced healing. Not complete—but substantial. Enough to open her practice. Enough to serve vulnerable children.
Now Michigan threatened to shut her down for counseling according to the faith that had transformed her life.
The Law Michigan Passed
In July 2023, Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed House Bill 4616, banning licensed mental health professionals from providing “conversion therapy” to minors.
The law defined conversion therapy as any treatment seeking to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Violators faced disciplinary action, loss of license, and fines up to $250,000.
Michigan became the 22nd state with such a ban. Whitmer called conversion therapy a “horrific practice.”
But the law went far beyond banning electric shock or aversion therapy. It banned talk therapy—private conversations between counselor and client about gender and sexuality.
What the Law Actually Banned
Here’s what Emily could no longer do under Michigan law:
Banned:
- Help a teenage girl who doesn’t want to transition but wants to accept her female body
- Counsel a young man struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction who wants to live according to his Catholic faith
- Explore underlying causes of gender dysphoria (trauma, autism, social influence, mental health issues)
- Provide therapy that helps children embrace their biological sex
Allowed:
- Affirm a child’s belief they were “born in the wrong body”
- Provide assistance for gender transition
- Support social transition (new name, pronouns, presentation)
- Refer for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries
The pattern was clear: The state approves gender-transition counseling. The state bans biological-sex-acceptance counseling.
Emily faced an impossible choice: Violate her conscience or lose her license.
Emily and Catholic Charities Fight Back
On July 12, 2024, Emily McJones and Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale Counties filed a federal lawsuit with help from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—the same organization that successfully defended Hobby Lobby’s religious freedom rights.
The plaintiffs argued Michigan’s law violated:
- First Amendment (Free Speech): Can’t tell counselors what they can/can’t say in private therapy
- First Amendment (Free Exercise): Can’t force Catholic counselors to violate religious beliefs
- 14th Amendment (Due Process): Law is vague, invites arbitrary enforcement
- Parental Rights: Parents can seek counseling aligned with their values
Catholic Charities provides counseling services rooted in Catholic faith. They’ve served their community for 60 years. They employ 16 state-licensed counselors. They believe sex is assigned at birth and marriage is between a man and woman.
Now the state threatened to shut them down.
District Court Says No
On January 28, 2025, federal Judge Jane Beckering denied their request for a preliminary injunction. The ban remained in effect.
Judge Beckering ruled:
- The law wasn’t vague
- It didn’t violate free exercise of religion (plaintiffs didn’t identify specific religious practices affected)
- States have broad power to regulate licensed professionals
Emily and Catholic Charities appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
The Sixth Circuit Rules: Michigan’s Law is Unconstitutional
On December 17, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed.
In a 2-1 opinion, Judge Raymond Kethledge (Bush appointee) joined by Judge Joan Larsen (Trump appointee) ruled Michigan’s ban violated the First Amendment.
The Court’s Reasoning: Viewpoint Discrimination
Judge Kethledge’s key finding:
“The Michigan law discriminates based on viewpoint—meaning the law permits speech on a particular topic only if the speech expresses a viewpoint that the government itself approves.”
The smoking gun: Michigan allows counseling to help someone undergo gender transition. But Michigan bans counseling to help someone accept their biological sex.
That’s viewpoint discrimination. The First Amendment doesn’t allow it.
The court explained: “Other content-based laws regulate ‘speech by its function or purpose.’ The law at issue here does that: it bans counseling ‘that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behavior or gender expression.'”
Translation: Michigan didn’t ban a harmful medical practice. It banned speech—private conversations about sexuality and gender that don’t align with state-approved ideology.
Chilling Effect on Speech
The court also found the law “chills” protected speech—creating present, ongoing injury.
Judge Kethledge wrote: “As a result, the plaintiffs’ discussions with their minor clients about gender identity and sexual orientation are now ‘more guarded and cautious,’ rather than ‘open’ and ‘candid.’ Those facts are enough to show that the law ‘chills’ the plaintiffs’ speech.”
The law threatened Catholic counselors with losing their licenses and facing $250,000 fines. That threat is real. The injury is happening now—not in some speculative future.
Therefore, Catholic Charities and Emily have standing to challenge the law. They don’t have to wait until the state prosecutes them.
The Preliminary Injunction Granted
The Sixth Circuit set aside the district court’s ruling and granted the preliminary injunction.
Effective immediately: Catholic Charities and Emily McJones can provide counseling according to their faith and professional judgment without fear of losing their licenses.
The case continues. But for now, Michigan cannot enforce its ban against these counselors.
The Dissent: Should Have Waited for SCOTUS
Judge Rachel Bloomekatz (Biden appointee) dissented.
Her argument: The Sixth Circuit should have waited for the Supreme Court to decide Chiles v. Salazar—the similar challenge to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban argued at SCOTUS on October 7, 2025.
Judge Bloomekatz argued conversion therapy should be regulated like medicine, not treated as protected speech. She cited research suggesting conversion therapy increases suicide risk and depression.
The majority disagreed. They ruled the Michigan case required decision now. The constitutional injury was ongoing. Families were being denied access to counseling they wanted.
The Constitutional Stakes: Why This Matters
This case implicates three fundamental constitutional principles.
1. Free Speech: Can States Dictate What Counselors Say?
The First Amendment protects speech. Professional licensing doesn’t eliminate free speech rights.
Yes, states can regulate professional conduct. They can require licenses, set educational standards, prohibit malpractice. But they cannot regulate the content and viewpoint of speech just because it happens in a professional context.
Hypothetical: Imagine a state law saying therapists can encourage clients toward religious faith, but cannot discuss doubts about religion. That would be viewpoint discrimination—even though it’s in a professional context.
Michigan’s law does the same thing with gender. Counselors can affirm gender transition. They cannot support acceptance of biological sex. The state picks winners and losers in an ongoing social and scientific debate.
The First Amendment doesn’t allow it.
2. Free Exercise: Can States Force Religious Violation?
Emily McJones is Catholic. Catholic teaching holds that God created human beings male and female. Sex is a gift, not an error to be corrected through medical intervention.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: “Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity” (CCC 2333).
A 2019 Vatican document, Male and Female He Created Them, states efforts to “cancel out sexual difference” contradict human nature and “call into question the creative work of God.”
Emily’s counseling flows from this teaching. She believes children struggling with gender dysphoria need compassionate care that helps them accept God’s design—not medical procedures that attempt to change it.
Michigan’s law forces her to either:
- Violate her religious beliefs by affirming gender ideology, or
- Refuse to counsel minors entirely, abandoning vulnerable children
That’s not a choice the government can impose.
3. Parental Rights: Can States Override Family Authority?
Parents have a fundamental right to direct their children’s upbringing—including moral and religious education.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): Parents have the right to “direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”
Troxel v. Granville (2000): “The liberty interest… of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children… is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests.”
When a parent seeks counseling for a child experiencing gender dysphoria, and that parent wants counseling aligned with their religious beliefs, the state cannot say “No. Your child must receive gender-affirming therapy or nothing.”
That overrides parental authority. It forces families to choose between their faith and access to mental health care.
The Constitution doesn’t permit it.
The Science Debate: What Does Evidence Actually Show?
Both sides cite research. But the debate isn’t settled.
Claims Supporting the Ban
Advocates for conversion therapy bans cite studies suggesting it increases suicide risk and depression—particularly for transgender youth.
A 2020 study found LGBTQ+ youth subjected to conversion therapy attempted suicide at nearly three times the rate of other minors. Over 60% of transgender youth who underwent conversion therapy before age 10 attempted suicide.
Major medical organizations oppose conversion therapy:
- American Psychological Association
- American Medical Association
- American Academy of Pediatrics
- American Psychiatric Association
They argue conversion therapy is based on the false premise that LGBTQ+ identities are mental disorders.
Claims Opposing the Ban
Catholic Charities and Emily McJones cite research questioning gender-affirming care.
They prominently cite the Cass Review—a comprehensive report commissioned by England’s National Health Service. Released in 2024, it found “remarkably weak evidence” for gender-affirming medical interventions for youth.
Dr. Hilary Cass concluded: “This is an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint.”
Based on the Cass Review, England’s NHS severely restricted puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors. Sweden, Finland, and Norway implemented similar restrictions.
The lawsuit argues: “There is no sound evidence that treatments which affirm a client’s sexual preference or gender identity provide any long-term benefits.”
The Real Question: Who Decides?
Here’s what matters for constitutional purposes: The science is disputed.
Even if you believe conversion therapy is harmful (and many do), the solution isn’t government-mandated ideology. It’s informed consent, parental authority, and counselor-client autonomy.
When science is unsettled, the First Amendment doesn’t allow states to pick one side and ban the other. That’s viewpoint discrimination masquerading as consumer protection.
If Michigan had evidence of specific fraud or malpractice by Catholic Charities or Emily McJones, it could investigate and prosecute. But blanket speech bans based on ideological disagreement? The Constitution forbids it.
Link to SCOTUS: Chiles v. Salazar
The Sixth Circuit’s ruling comes two months after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar—a nearly identical challenge to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban.
The Colorado Case
On October 7, 2025, SCOTUS heard arguments challenging Colorado’s ban. The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor who wants to provide talk therapy helping clients reduce unwanted same-sex attraction.
Colorado’s law, like Michigan’s, bans “conversion therapy” for minors. Plaintiffs argue it violates free speech rights.
Early read from oral arguments: Justices appeared skeptical of Colorado’s defense. Multiple justices—including Justice Kagan (Obama appointee) and Justice Kavanaugh (Trump appointee)—expressed concern about viewpoint discrimination.
Justice Alito noted the law “looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination.”
Decision expected: June 2026
Impact on the Sixth Circuit Case
Judge Bloomekatz’s dissent argued the Sixth Circuit should have waited for SCOTUS to decide Chiles. Why rule on Michigan’s law when the Supreme Court will settle the issue nationwide in a few months?
The majority disagreed. Two reasons:
First: The constitutional injury is happening now. Families are being denied access to counseling. Counselors are being silenced. Waiting six months means six more months of ongoing First Amendment violation.
Second: The Sixth Circuit has an independent duty to apply the Constitution. They don’t defer to SCOTUS on every issue with a pending case.
But the practical reality: If SCOTUS strikes down Colorado’s ban in June 2026, Michigan’s ban will almost certainly fall too. And if SCOTUS upholds Colorado’s ban, the Sixth Circuit ruling may be reversed.
Bottom line: This case is a preview of what’s coming from the Supreme Court.
The Third Way: Beyond False Binaries
The debate over conversion therapy often presents false choices.
Reject the Progressive Narrative
Progressive claim: “Conversion therapy is torture. It’s been discredited. States must ban it to protect vulnerable youth.”
Problems with this narrative:
-
Conflates different practices: Michigan’s law doesn’t ban only electric shock or aversion therapy. It bans talk therapy—private conversations about sexuality and gender.
-
Assumes one answer: Not all children with gender dysphoria benefit from affirmation. Some desist (identify with biological sex after puberty). Others regret transition. Research shows 60-90% of children with gender dysphoria desist if not socially or medically transitioned.
-
Ignores parental authority: Many parents want counseling aligned with their religious beliefs. Banning it doesn’t protect children—it denies families access to care they choose.
-
Enforces ideology: The law allows gender-transition counseling but bans biological-sex-acceptance counseling. That’s not science. That’s viewpoint discrimination.
Reject the Libertarian Extreme
Libertarian claim: “States can never regulate therapy. All counseling is protected speech. Let the market decide.”
Problems with this position:
-
Ignores genuine harms: Some “conversion therapy” practices are harmful—electric shock, nausea-inducing drugs, shaming, abuse. States can prohibit malpractice.
-
Dismisses fraud concerns: If a counselor promises to “cure” homosexuality through scientifically baseless methods while taking thousands of dollars, that’s fraud. States can prosecute.
-
Oversimplifies licensing: Professional licenses come with reasonable regulations. States can require education, competency, ethical standards.
The Third Way: Protect Rights, Prohibit Harm
Principle 1: States Can Regulate Harmful Practices—With Evidence
If a therapist uses electric shock, drugs, or abusive techniques, prosecute them. If a counselor commits fraud by promising guaranteed outcomes, sanction them. If specific practices cause documented harm, prohibit those practices.
But don’t ban talk therapy based on ideological disagreement about gender.
Principle 2: Respect Parental Authority and Client Autonomy
Parents have the right to seek counseling aligned with their values. Children (especially teenagers) have the right to pursue therapeutic goals they choose—including accepting their biological sex.
Emily McJones has had clients say: “I’m experiencing gender dysphoria. I don’t want to transition. I want to feel comfortable in my body.” That’s a legitimate therapeutic goal. States shouldn’t ban counseling that supports it.
Principle 3: Protect Viewpoint Diversity in Unsettled Science
The science on gender dysphoria, affirmation, transition, and desistence is not settled. Researchers disagree. Countries are reversing course. The Cass Review found “weak evidence.”
When science is disputed, the First Amendment protects diverse viewpoints. States cannot mandate one orthodoxy and ban dissent.
Principle 4: Distinguish Speech from Conduct
Talk therapy is speech. It’s private conversation. The First Amendment gives it robust protection—even in professional contexts.
Medical interventions (surgeries, hormones, drugs) are conduct. States have more leeway to regulate conduct.
Michigan’s law regulates speech, not conduct. That’s why it’s unconstitutional.
What This Means for Christians
Yesterday’s ruling matters for three reasons.
1. It Protects Religious Liberty
Christian counselors can practice according to their conscience. Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox therapists who believe God created male and female can counsel accordingly—without losing their licenses.
This extends beyond gender. It protects counselors’ right to integrate faith and practice across all therapeutic areas.
Principle established: States cannot force religious professionals to violate their beliefs as a condition of professional licensing.
2. It Protects Families Seeking Faith-Based Counseling
Christian parents can seek counseling for their children aligned with biblical teaching. They don’t have to choose between their faith and access to mental health care.
This matters especially for families with children experiencing gender dysphoria. Many Christian parents believe the compassionate response is therapy that addresses underlying issues—not immediate affirmation and medical transition.
Now they can access that care.
3. It Pushes Back Against Ideological Mandates
The ruling is part of a broader pattern: Courts pushing back against state-mandated gender ideology.
Examples:
- United States v. Skrmetti (June 2025): SCOTUS upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-transition procedures for minors
- Mahmoud v. Taylor (pending): Parents challenging school’s secret social transition policy
- Chiles v. Salazar (pending): SCOTUS challenge to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban
The message: States cannot use regulatory power to enforce one viewpoint on contested social issues—especially when constitutional rights are at stake.
What Christians Should Do
Five action steps:
1. Support Christian Counselors and Legal Defense
Organizations like the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) defend religious liberty in court. They need financial support.
Donate to:
- Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (becketfund.org)
- Alliance Defending Freedom (adf.legal)
These organizations provide free legal representation to Christians facing government overreach.
2. Know Your Rights
If you’re a Christian counselor in a state with a conversion therapy ban, know your rights. The Sixth Circuit ruling creates precedent in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
If you’re a parent seeking counseling for your child, you have the right to choose therapy aligned with your values. Don’t be intimidated by state laws that may be unconstitutional.
3. Pray for Pending Cases
Pray for:
- Chiles v. Salazar at SCOTUS (decision June 2026)
- Emily McJones and Catholic Charities as their case continues
- All Christian counselors facing similar threats
- Wisdom for judges deciding these cases
4. Speak Truth About Gender
The culture tells us biology is irrelevant, gender is a feeling, and children should be affirmed in any identity they claim.
Christians must speak truth: God created male and female (Genesis 1:27). Our bodies are not accidents to be corrected. Children experiencing gender dysphoria need compassionate care—not a rush toward irreversible medical procedures.
Speak truth in your church. Teach your children. Equip your teenagers. Respond to cultural lies with biblical clarity and compassion.
5. Support Vulnerable Children
Gender dysphoria is real suffering. These children need help—not political slogans.
The compassionate response: Address underlying causes (trauma, autism, mental health), provide therapy that helps children accept their bodies, support families navigating difficult situations, protect children from premature medical interventions they may regret.
Support ministries and counselors providing this care. Volunteer at pregnancy centers that serve families. Donate to organizations helping detransitioners.
The culture wants to medicalize confused children. Christians must offer a better way.
Biblical Principles: Why This Matters to God
Three biblical truths undergird this case.
1. God’s Design: Male and Female (Genesis 1:27)
“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
Our bodies are not accidents. Male and female is God’s design—not a social construct or cultural imposition.
When a child experiences gender dysphoria—discomfort with their biological sex—the biblical response isn’t “your body is wrong.” It’s “you’re experiencing real pain, and we’ll help you work through it while honoring God’s design.”
Emily McJones’s counseling flows from this truth: God made you male or female. Your body is good. We’ll help you embrace it.
2. Compassion and Truth Together (Ephesians 4:15)
“Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.”
Compassion without truth is sentimentality. Truth without compassion is cruelty. Christians must hold both.
Compassionate: Children with gender dysphoria are suffering. They need help, not judgment. They deserve care, not condemnation.
Truthful: The solution isn’t affirming confusion. It’s addressing underlying causes and helping children accept reality.
Emily’s approach embodies this: Compassionate care rooted in truth. Not shaming children. Not forcing change. But helping them work through distress toward wholeness.
3. Protecting Children (Matthew 18:6)
“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
Jesus takes child protection seriously. So should we.
The question: What helps children and what harms them?
Harm: Rushing children toward irreversible medical procedures (puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, surgeries) based on temporary feelings. Studies show many children desist. Many detransitioners regret transition. Permanent bodily changes can’t be undone.
Help: Compassionate counseling that addresses underlying issues, helps children work through confusion, supports acceptance of their bodies, and gives them time to mature before life-altering decisions.
Michigan’s law mandates the first approach and bans the second. A court just said that violates the Constitution. Christians should say it violates God’s design for human flourishing.
Conclusion: Emily Can Keep Counseling
Yesterday, Emily McJones won.
She can keep Little Flower Counseling open. She can continue serving vulnerable children. She can provide therapy rooted in her Catholic faith and professional judgment—without fear of losing her license.
Catholic Charities can keep helping families. Their 60-year ministry continues.
Michigan’s ideological mandate is blocked.
But the fight isn’t over. The case continues in federal court. Michigan will appeal. The Supreme Court will decide Chiles v. Salazar in June 2026—potentially settling this issue nationwide.
Until then, we pray. We support Christian counselors facing similar threats. We speak truth about God’s design. We protect vulnerable children from ideological mandates dressed as compassion.
The principle: Government cannot force Christians to violate their conscience. States cannot mandate ideological conformity. Parents retain authority over their children’s upbringing. The First Amendment still protects religious liberty and free speech.
A federal court just reaffirmed these truths. We pray the Supreme Court will too.
“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” (Galatians 5:1)
Emily McJones stood firm. The court said she has that right. Christians across the country should do the same.
Related Articles
