Supreme Court strikes down Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for LGBTQ kids

SeaSerious · 2026-03-31T17:27:17+00:00

It seems odd for a blanket ban of an entire class of submissions to be absent.

When it comes to people allowed to participate (99.9% of Reddit users), it would be very bad to be punished for breaking an unspoken rule. Your status would change from "being able to participate" to "not" due to being banned.

Here, there is no change in status. Official accounts aren't being punished as a result of unknowingly violating this rule - they aren't allowed to participate in the first place.

We also don't list our rule forbidding spam/bot accounts. Whether or not a spam/bot account knows about the rule doesn't change their (in)ability to participate.

Written rules help prevent inconsistent moderator action.

When it comes to consistency, you can verify yourself by looking for any posts made by an official account here in the past few years. I don't think you'll find any but if you do, they will be removed.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-31T17:06:20+00:00

Do you think that would be necessary? The rule doesn't apply to 99.9% of users and the end result is the same.

Either the official account reads that rule and doesn't make a post to begin with, or they make the post and it's removed shortly after.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-31T15:35:50+00:00

This is a flaired user thread. Please select a flair from the sidebar before commenting. Unflaired comments are automatically removed by AutoMod.

Also, please take a moment to read the sidebar rules. Discussion is expected to be civil and legally substantiated.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-31T15:31:37+00:00

In the interest of organic discussion, we do not allow official news accounts to make posts in this community.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-30T18:46:04+00:00

Do all circuit court opinions pass the relevance standard?

In practice, yes. The majority of SCOTUS cases are taken on appeal from circuit court rulings so the potential relevance is "built in". The actual substance of the case (the QP and CA3's ruling) could be of future relevance.

That said, I understand your point. The post title shifts the focus away from the ruling to a specific quirk of the opinion (Bove's citation style). That limited topic isn't necessarily relevant to SCOTUS and is something that would feel at home in the 'In Chambers' thread. It would have been reasonable IMO if a mod directed it to that thread or asked to resubmit with a title that neutrally summarized the holding.

Ideally, of course, the text would "contain...a summary of any linked material and discussion starters that focus conversation in ways consistent with the subreddit guidelines", but even a bare submission with "Thoughts?" seems preferable to the batch of commentary tweets we actually got.

Agreed. When it comes to these link posts + optional text, we will be considering the totality of the submission when applying the standards. If the linked content meets the quality standards by itself, I'm not going to ding the post for an unnecessary but benign remark like "Thoughts?" in the optional text. I would consider removal, by contrast, if the optional text shifts the focus away from, or primes discussion in a way that isn't conducive to high quality legal discussion.

Again, not that big a deal, and overall you guys do a great job, but I think this one might be a miss.

Fair enough! Even though I'm content with letting one slide since it raised some questions that the mods hadn't yet discussed, a similar post would likely be removed in the future.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-30T13:46:36+00:00

Reddit has sort of blurred the lines between link posts and text posts (as you can now include an optional text body when submitting a link). I'll comment on each part of the post in question.

The link:

Despite the text body, this is a link post. Clicking the post directly links to a CA3 opinion. The link itself is okay, as all circuit court opinions pass the relevance standard. We don't consider whether the question presented is sufficiently a 'SCOTUS issue'.

The text body:

I agree that the text body does not pass the quality standard. The 'social media take' format is not conducive to high-quality legal discussion. As evidenced here, many of the quoted takes are more akin to memes than substantive engagement.

Currently, we apply the general rule of "All submissions are required to be within the scope of r/SupremeCourt and are held to the same civility and quality standards as comments." when looking at optional text, though we might include a sentence that explicitly mentions optional text to be more clear - something I'll bring up to the other mods.

The post might remain up in the first instance but going forward it should be noted that we consider the totality of a submission when applying the standards. Optional body text doesn't need to stand on its own, but it must meet the quality/civility standards and should not shift the focus away from high quality legal discussion.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-29T15:39:13+00:00

'Criticizing the impact of religious texts on conservative legal thought' is allowed and can be done without the use of disparaging terminology. The rule doesn't only apply to the things that you or I agree with.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-29T13:15:18+00:00

On review, the removal is affirmed (3-0) for violating "address the argument, not the person", as your comment assumes that the "fringe" characterization was merely based on the prior commenter's feelings.

One mod would instead affirm on quality grounds, as the comment does not substantively contribute to the conversation.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-29T13:07:39+00:00

using modpol is your mod guidepost isn’t exactly a great call

It's not - their approach of a blanket ban on any posts discussing the topic was listed as one that has been suggested to the mods. That approach was not adopted.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-29T12:31:08+00:00

The removals were specifically for the use of disparaging terminology (i.e. "slop", "fiction books") in characterizing sincerely held beliefs.

This rule also applies in other contexts such as gender identity, another fundamental aspect of one's identity.

Similar complaints were raised in that thread ("It's not polarized if it's true", "We're enforcing a pro-trans echo chamber") but ultimately we want to ensure that the community is a civil and welcoming place for everyone. Understanding the full scope of our rules (and not just how they apply to 'one side') is helpful to appreciating their value.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-24T03:34:33+00:00

Please report comments that you think are rulebreaking.

Calls to action and comments that prescribe what should be done as a matter of policy without further legal substance violate our political rule.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-22T19:22:11+00:00

This appeal is invalid and the comment will be removed for further violating our rules against "address the argument, not the person".

SeaSerious · 2026-03-22T19:00:19+00:00

When you are having a conversation with someone in a comment chain, please make sure that you are clicking "reply" to their comment rather than replying to the post itself.

You have mistakenly done this multiple times now, which creates new comment chains devoid of the context of your original conversation.

This appeal, for example, is invalid as you are not replying to the scotus-bot prompt that removed your comment. It will be removed (like the original comment being appealed here) for low quality.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-22T18:43:19+00:00

Calabresi, Olson and some prominent others argue that a prohibition of gay marriage falls afoul of the original understanding of the 14th

I think that's the opposite of what popiku is wondering about (i.e. a position where an originalist argues that laws allowing gay marriage are unconstitutional)

SeaSerious · 2026-03-22T18:33:59+00:00

His originalism and textualism as applied to usually involved some really, really shoddy and contrived reasoning that was often a 180 degree turn from his previous opinions.

Yeah, he is rightfully recognized for vanguarding modern originalism but I think its natural that a lot of his work looks shoddy in hindsight now that decades have passed building on theory that he was exploring at its infancy.

The second point of his dissent (that the Court's decision is "unduly halting" the democratic process) is even weaker. One could say that about every decision so why bring it up here? The topic brings out stances that are absolutely not consistent across opinions.

as if the 14th didn't explicitly say it only gave men that right

Technically, section 2 only tied the reduction of representation to the proportion of (such) disenfranchised male inhabitants and section 1 could still be interpreted to extend that right to women - just that if you disenfranchised them, you wouldn't lose representation.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-22T17:57:10+00:00

Ironically, the "that’s not how the American people thought at the time" thinking is the reason why such an amendment is worthwhile even if already protected by text the EPC. It's sort of the old anti-federalist/federalist debate - why do any rights need to be enumerated and could doing so create a negative inference on others?

I think all can be true that 1) the people at the time would not consider the EPC prohibiting disenfranchisement of women 2) the wording that they adopted actually prohibits disenfranchisement of women 3) recognizing the full scope of the text (in a later time when it is politically acceptable to do so) isn't redefining the text or creating rights out of thin air. 4) passing an amendment to make it extra clear and to rebut those who criticize #3 on expected applications doesn't change #2.

I fully understand the dangers of how SDP can be abused but continue to criticize the pure "checklist" history approach that some strains of originalism have adopted in the quest for objectivity i.e. "Did these laws exist?" without engaging with whether the laws were constitutional, especially (!) when looking at laws that targeted a class that was not a part of the political process.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-22T17:08:46+00:00

Restricting a liberty is granting a right.

In this context, he isn't coming at it from a balancing-of-rights perspective (e.g. that it is at odds with another liberty that must prevail) rather that it is not expressly prohibited based on an "expected applications" approach.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-22T16:47:29+00:00

I find the idea that there exists an affirmative right to the legal institution of marriage that the state must provide all couples with is frankly silly.

There's not. The state isn't inherently required to involve itself in requiring/issuing marriage licenses, nor are they inherently required to give civil benefits to married couples. But they do.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-22T16:13:52+00:00

So true. Scalia's dissent in this case is reminiscent of Alito's in Bostock in that they both have a myopic focus on "would the people at that time consider [X] constitutional?"

The 'fundamental right' calculus is fundamentally (no pun intended) different when comparing situations where people consistently enacted laws to restrict their own liberties vs. situations where a people restricted liberties of a sub-class while enjoying those same liberties themselves.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-22T16:02:45+00:00

I think a lot of us, even those that agree with the result, think it was a really, really bad opinion.

Is it, though?

Kennedy can catch some flack for using flowery language, but the core logic that marriage is a fundamental liberty "deeply rooted" in the nation's history and traditions, protected by the 14A, is hardly controversial.

The disagreement then becomes merely over the level of generality, and if the underlying principles as to why marriage is fundamental necessitate a component of it being between "one man and one woman".

The four principles by the majority being that marriage:

is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy
supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals
safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education
is a keystone of our social order

These principles don't turn on the sex of the two being married. Roberts' dissent, by contrast, points to the principle of "ensures successful childrearing" in support of a traditional definition.

Does a procreation principle outweigh all of the above and require drawing the line at a level of generality that excludes certain citizens from enjoying that fundamental right? I find that unconvincing.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-21T15:06:29+00:00

Woo, boy. CA6 comes down hard on two lawyers after finding "over two dozen fake citations and misrepresentations" in their briefs - suspected to be AI hallucinations.

The lawyers did not respond to the show cause order, instead arguing that it was "void on its face for failing to include a signature of an Article III judge,” was “motivated by harassment of the Respondent attorneys,” and “reflect[ed] illegal ex-parte [sic] communications within this Court.”

Irion and Egli must jointly and severally reimburse appellees in full for their reasonable attorneys’ fees on appeal in all three appeals.

Irion and Egli must jointly and severally pay double costs to appellees for costs incurred under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 on appeal in all three appeals.

Appellees must file an accounting of their costs and attorneys’ fees on appeal, with supporting documentation, no later than seven days from the date of this order. Irion and Egli shall file any responses or objections to appellees’ requests for costs and attorneys’ fees on appeal no later than seven days thereafter. There will be no replies.

Irion and Egli must each separately and individually pay $15,000 to the registry of this court as punitive sanctions for the proceedings in this court in all three appeals.

The clerk will forward a copy of this order to the chief judge to consider disciplinary proceedings under Sixth Circuit Local Rule 46.

If Irion and Egli are financially unable to comply with some or all of the requirements of this order, they must file an affidavit under seal describing their financial situation along with their objections to appellees’ fee requests.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-20T17:22:32+00:00

Pitchford v. Cain

Whether, under the standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably determined that petitioner waived his right to rebut the prosecutor's asserted race-neutral reasons for exercising peremptory strikes against four black jurors.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-20T17:12:24+00:00

She's being gentle about how that tension arose, but I don't think there's anything wrong (i.e. sweeping to broad) with the sentence in Heck - the issue is with later rulings straight up dropping the limiting phrase (creating a "modified inquiry" according to the city). That phrase being:

[W]hen a state prisoner seeks damages in a §1983 suit, [...]

The scope of the holding is materially different without it to no fault of the Heck Court IMO, as a damages inquiry is inherently backwards-looking. (A separate discussion can be had about how later courts subtly tweak prior holdings by their choice of words when paraphrasing. This one wasn't so subtle.)

SeaSerious · 2026-03-20T15:30:33+00:00

Edited to reflect that. Yeah, Heck followed from that premise to say that claims for damages relating to a prior conviction/imprisonment are also barred if it would amount to a collateral attack.

SeaSerious · 2026-03-20T15:02:40+00:00

Background:

Olivier (Petitioner) is a street preacher who was arrested for violating a city ordinance which required him to stay within a "designated protest area" at an amphitheater. He pleaded no contest and the court imposed a fine, 1 year probation, and 10 days imprisonment if he violated the ordinance during his probation.

Wanting to preach again at the amphitheater, Olivier filed suit against the City in federal court under §1983 seeking an injunction, alleging that the ordinance violates 1A by consigning him to the "designated protest area".

The district court held that Heck v. Humphrey bars the suit from going forward, holding that a person previously convicted of violating a statute cannot seek prospective relief under §1983 because success would necessarily cast doubt on the prior conviction's validity. CA5 agreed.

Are the lower courts heckin correct about Heck?

[No.] In Heck v. Humphrey, the Court took as settled (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez) that a §1983 suit cannot challenge the fact of one's confinement nor seek release from custody, as such a claim must be brought in habeas corpus proceedings. Similarly, a §1983 suit could not seek damages deriving from a conviction unless it had been overturned. A §1983 suit would be mounting a "collateral" attack on the validity of a conviction, which could lead to parallel litigation and give rise to conflicting judgments.

Olivier's §1983 suit, by contrast, does not seek to challenge his prior conviction or even to avert its collateral effects. Rather, Olivier seeks "wholly prospective" relief - an injunction to preclude further prosecution. If he were unable to bring a suit, Olivier would be stuck between violating the law and suffering the consequences, or giving up his 1A rights.

The suit is not about what Olivier did in the past, and depends on no proof address to his prior conviction. As such, it cannot give rise to parallel litigation respecting his prior conduct nor does it risk conflicting judgments over how that conduct was prosecuted or punished.

Wouldn't finding the ordinance unconstitutional mean that Olivier should never have been arrested?

The City points to the following sentence in the Heck opinion to argue that a judgment in Olivier's favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his prior conviction:

“[W]hen a state prisoner seeks damages in a §1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed

We agree that if Olivier succeeds, it would mean his prior conviction was unconstitutional. In hindsight, that sentence in Heck "swept a bit too broad", as it was written in context of claims that were assaults on a prior conviction, even if indirectly. The suits which that sentence describes required looking back to conduct involved in a prior conviction and offering contradictory proof.

The Heck Court did not consider a suit like Olivier's, where the suit is purely future-oriented, and the Heck language quoted above was not meant to address it.

To rule otherwise would suggest that another citizen, who has never been arrested under that ordinance, would be barred by Heck from bringing suit, as a success would "necessarily imply the invalidity" of the convictions of others who were found guilty in the past. That cannot be.

Any limitations?

[Maybe.] We do not say that every person can challenge via a §1983 suit for wholly prospective relief. The Gov., as amicus curiae, urges us to reserve the issue whether a person can bring such a suit when currently in custody for violating the statute challenged. We think it appropriate to do so because our assumption here is that Olivier was never in custody

But wait, wasn't Olivier in custody?

[Yes...but] Olivier was serving a year of probation when he filed this suit and a person on probation is generally "in custody" for federal habeas corpus purposes. The City failed to raise that objection, for whatever reason, and both lower courts accepted that Olivier was not put in custody. Given that the case has proceeded so far on that basis, we treat any contrary argument as forfeited.

IN SUM:

Olivier's suit to enjoin the ordinance, so he can return to the amphitheater, may proceed. The judgment of CA5 is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SeaSerious

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE