Washington state's ban on conversion therapy for minors is being challenged once again in federal court.

Brian Tingley, a so-called "family therapist" in Fircrest, Washington, has asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down the law on the grounds that it violates his First Amendment free speech rights.

The law, passed in 2018, forbids the practice of trying to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors through "counseling" that often amounts to torture. More than 20 states have passed laws against conversion therapy. The American Psychological Association has said such therapy is harmful to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.

Tingley says his work is based on his Christian faith, and that his "treatments" are carried out with the consent of the "patient's" parents.

He sued to get the law overturned in 2021, but his suit was dismissed by US District Judge Robert Bryan last August. Bryan ruled that the state has the right to regulate professional conduct even if it "incidentally" burdens speech.

Tingley appealed the ruling. He is represented by Roger Brooks, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a notorious Christian-right group. Among the ADF's other recent clients is an Ohio professor who was disciplined for misgendering a student. The ADF has also intervened legally to prevent Jewish people from adopting children.

According to Brooks, restrictions on Tingley's free speech are not incidental to his professional practice because the "therapy" itself consists entirely of speech.

Assistant Attorney General Cristina Sepe, arguing for the state, countered that the law regulated therapists' professional conduct, not speech, and protects minors from an ineffective and harmful practice.

Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, sitting on the three-judge panel that heard the appeal, pressed Brooks on whether the panel could go against an earlier 9th Circuit decision upholding a similar California law.

Brooks said it could and should, adding that the US Supreme Court expanded free speech protections in its 2018 decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. In that case, the high court struck down a California law requiring clinics for pregnant women to provide notices of the availability of certain state-subsidized services, including abortion.

Sepe argued that case was different because Tingley's speech, unlike the notices, was a part of the treatment he was offering, and so could be regulated as professional conduct rather than speech. She said the law did not infringe on Tingley's right to express his views publicly but only regulated the treatment he could offer.

In addition to Bennett, Circuit Judges Kim Wardlaw and Ronald Gould are also on the panel. If the panel upholds the law, the next step for Tingley would be to ask for the entire 9th Circuit to hear the case. After that, he could ask the US Supreme Court to take it up.