A federal judge issued a permanent order barring Michigan from enforcing its 2023 law that prohibited counselors from offering talk therapy to children struggling with gender dysphoria, a decisive win for religious liberty advocates and the therapists they represent.
U.S. District Judge Jane Beckering signed the order Thursday, requiring the state to cease all enforcement of the law, which had banned licensed counselors from engaging in talk therapy aimed at helping minors who question their biological sex. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which brought the case on behalf of affected counselors, announced the permanent order as the final resolution of the legal challenge.
The ruling follows a U.S. Supreme Court decision in March that found similar treatments are protected by the First Amendment. That earlier ruling effectively stripped the legal foundation from Michigan's law and from comparable restrictions elsewhere. Luke Goodrich, the Becket senior counsel who served as lead attorney in the case, said the state had no ground left to stand on.
Michigan enacted HB4616 in 2023, making it unlawful for licensed therapists to engage in talk therapy designed to help children accept their biological sex. The law's practical effect, according to Goodrich, was to push minors toward more aggressive interventions, hormones and surgeries, by cutting off the less invasive option of counseling.
Goodrich put the law's consequences in blunt terms in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation:
"Michigan's crackdown on talk therapy pushed children with gender dysphoria toward harmful, irreversible drugs and surgeries; the harms of these procedures are so serious that 26 states and at least five European countries have banned or significantly restricted them. Thankfully, the Constitution stopped Michigan's attack on free speech, religious liberty, and children in need."
That claim, that 26 states and at least five European nations have moved to restrict or ban hormonal and surgical interventions for minors, underscores how far out of step Michigan's approach had become. While those jurisdictions were pulling back from irreversible medical procedures for children, Michigan was barring the professionals who offered a less drastic alternative.
The trend extends well beyond Michigan. Courts across the country have weighed in on state-level restrictions involving minors and gender-related medical procedures. A Texas Supreme Court ruling recently reopened a malpractice lawsuit brought by a detransitioner against a therapist, signaling growing judicial skepticism about the standards of care applied to gender-questioning youth.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals set an early marker in this legal landscape when it reversed a lower court and allowed Tennessee's ban on gender-related surgeries and hormones for minors to take effect. That 2023 decision, the first of its kind at the federal circuit level, covered states including Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote that "given the high stakes of these nascent policy deliberations, the long-term health of children facing gender dysphoria, sound government usually benefits from more rather than less debate."
Goodrich emphasized that the permanent order extends beyond the counselors who originally filed suit. Its reach is statewide.
"The court's order protects every licensed Michigan professional who practices talk therapy, not just the counselors who brought this case. It's a major victory for kids, counselors, and common sense."
The scope matters. Under HB4616, any licensed professional in Michigan who offered talk therapy to a minor questioning their gender identity risked professional discipline. Tennessee's law, by comparison, imposed fines of up to $25,000 on healthcare providers who violated its ban on surgeries, cross-sex hormones, and puberty blockers for minors. Michigan's law took the opposite approach, rather than restricting aggressive interventions, it restricted the conversation itself.
That distinction is central to the First Amendment question. The Supreme Court's March ruling found that talk therapy, a verbal exchange between a counselor and a client, falls squarely within protected speech. Goodrich said the constitutional principle was clear:
"[The First Amendment] clearly protects conversations between counselors and their clients, and Michigan had no constitutional basis for silencing them."
The legal fight over how states handle gender-questioning minors is far from settled. In Colorado, a state supreme court recently forced a children's hospital to resume gender treatments for minors, illustrating how differently courts in progressive-leaning states have approached the issue.
Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel, whose office would have been responsible for defending the 2023 law, did not respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation. The linked court document's filename describes the order as "stipulated", a term that typically indicates both sides agreed to the final terms rather than fighting them out at trial.
If that is the case, Michigan effectively conceded. After the Supreme Court's March ruling, the state's legal position was untenable. Goodrich told the DCNF he was not surprised Michigan backed down.
The silence from Nessel's office fits a broader pattern. Across the country, Democratic leaders have struggled to articulate a coherent response as courts and legislatures have moved against policies that prioritize gender ideology over parental rights and medical caution.
Michigan itself has faced scrutiny on other fronts. A Michigan Democratic donor recently faced 16 felony charges over an alleged scheme to loot a $20 million taxpayer-funded grant, a reminder that accountability questions in the state extend well beyond any single policy area.
Several open questions remain. The court order's full text has not been quoted publicly, and it is unclear whether it includes specific carve-outs or definitions for the types of talk therapy now protected. The identities of the original plaintiff counselors have not been disclosed in public reporting. And the precise scope of "licensed Michigan professional", whether it covers school counselors, clergy with counseling licenses, or only clinical therapists, is not spelled out in available descriptions of the order.
What is clear is the trajectory. The Supreme Court established in March that the government cannot ban a counselor from having a conversation with a client about gender dysphoria. Judge Beckering's permanent order applies that principle to Michigan's law specifically and permanently. The state cannot re-enforce HB4616 without defying both the district court and the Supreme Court.
For the counselors who brought the case, and for the families who sought their help, the order restores an option that Michigan tried to eliminate: the right to sit down with a licensed professional and talk. No drugs, no surgeries, just a conversation. The fact that a state government tried to outlaw that conversation, and lost, says more about the state of progressive policymaking than any editorial ever could.
