Two Christian counselors have taken legal action against the city of Lincoln, Nebraska, arguing that a local ordinance restricting certain therapy discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity violates their constitutional rights and exposes them to penalties, including up to six months in jail.
The lawsuit was filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska by licensed therapists Thomas Dierks and another counselor identified in court documents as John Doe.
Their complaint challenges Chapter 11.09 and Section 11.01.010 of Lincoln’s municipal code, which prohibit the practice of so-called “conversion therapy” involving LGBT-identifying minors.
The plaintiffs maintain that the ordinance infringes on their freedom of speech under the First Amendment. They further argue that the restrictions violate the 14th Amendment because the language is too vague to inform counselors about which conversations are legally permitted.
The complaint warns that counselors could face “severe sanctions, including jail time, substantial fines, suspension from practice and loss of professional licenses for each instance of using words in therapy outlawed by the ordinance.”
A Lincoln city spokesperson told The Christian Post that the measure was enacted in February 2021 and that “The City Attorney’s Office has not yet filed an official response.”
Attorneys representing the therapists argue that the city’s restrictions prevent counselors from addressing certain subjects requested by their young clients, raising concerns about government interference in private therapeutic conversations.
Matt Heffron, senior counsel with the Thomas More Society, which is assisting in the lawsuit, criticized the ordinance for limiting counseling based on the viewpoints expressed.
“When a child reaches out for help, Lincoln’s ordinance takes away the trusted adult he turned to and leaves him only one government-approved answer,” Heffron said. “The Supreme Court made clear that the government cannot censor a counselor’s words because it disapproves of the viewpoint they express.”
The legal challenge comes after the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 ruling in March in Chiles v. Salazar, a case involving a Colorado law restricting certain counseling conversations with minors concerning sexual orientation and gender dysphoria.
The ruling found that Colorado’s restrictions raised First Amendment concerns because they regulated counselors’ speech based on the viewpoints expressed, providing a significant legal precedent for challenges to similar measures.
