The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed a district court Thursday and asked it to take another look at a case filed by two licensed counselors against Kansas City, Missouri, and Jackson County, Missouri, over their counseling censorship ordinances. The 8th Circuit did so in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against a similar Colorado law in March. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent the two counselors, Wyatt Bury and Pamela Eisenrich, in Wyatt Bury v. City of Kansas City and also represented the counselor who challenged the Colorado law in Chiles v. Salazar.
ADF attorneys explain that the Kansas City and Jackson County ordinances violated the counselors’ freedom of speech by censoring them from having voluntary conversations with their clients about views on gender identity and sexuality that those governments disfavor. A separate Kansas City ordinance also compelled and restricted their speech with clients and the public. The ordinances threatened the counselors with fines and even jail time. Shortly after oral argument, Kansas City repealed one of the threatening ordinances but left another on the books. Jackson County’s ordinance remains in effect.
“No government should single out views they don’t like for disfavored treatment,” said ADF Senior Counsel Bryan Neihart, who argued before the 8th Circuit on behalf of the counselors in May. “The Kansas City and Jackson County ordinances allow counselors to push kids down the dangerous path of gender transition, often leading to harmful drugs and surgeries, but they forbid counselors like Wyatt and Pamela from talking with kids to help them accept their bodies—even when that is the client’s express goal or the reason they seek the counselors’ advice. This is precisely what the U.S. Supreme Court so recently explained isn’t acceptable under the First Amendment.”
“The Kansas City ordinance that forces Wyatt and Pamela to promote views on marriage, identity, and sexuality that contradict their religious beliefs is equally unacceptable, especially after the Supreme Court’s decision in another ADF case, 303 Creative v. Elenis,” Neihart added. “The 8th Circuit’s decision gives the district court the opportunity to fully uphold counselors’ freedom of speech and the freedom of families and young people to pursue counselors of their choice, and we hope it will do so.”
In Chiles, the Supreme Court affirmed that counseling conversations are speech and that governments cannot silence viewpoints in the counseling room. In 303 Creative, the court reaffirmed that governments cannot misuse laws to force Americans to say things they don’t believe under the threat of punishment.
Mike Whitehead and Jonathan Whitehead, two of more than 5,200 attorneys in the ADF Attorney Network, are serving as local counsel on behalf of the counselors.
