On Tuesday afternoon, in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a Colorado law that bans conversion therapy for minors over their sexual orientation, MS NOW host Chris Jansing put on a negative spin, calling it "a major blow to LGBTQ rights." She could just as easily have called it a victory for free speech. At 12:22 p.m., she informed viewers: We've got some breaking news, a major blow to LGBTQ rights, and it's coming on Trans Visibility Day. In an 8 to 1 decision, the Supreme Court voted to essentially allow conversion therapy for kids, siding with a Christian therapist in Colorado. But their ruling could impact 20 other states with similar laws. Senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin then recounted that the majority ruling found that the law discriminated against the views of conversion therapists: The decision said, Chris, by a vote of 8 to 1, that when Colorado banned conversion therapy, they didn't just incidentally infringe on a particular therapist's right to offer talk therapy to her patients -- that essentially the Colorado law was not viewpoint-neutral -- that it told her that she could not, for example, offer conversion therapy or anything designed to affirm that a change in sexual orientation or in gender identity would be positive for someone, but allowed her, conversely, to sympathize with or support a patient undergoing a transition in either gender identity or sexual orientation, the court said. The two went on to discuss the dissenting opinion of liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Colorado wanted to restrict speech for harm reduction: "What the state of Colorado is trying to do is prevent harms, including suicidality, among people who are undergoing transitions either in their gender identity or in their sexual orientation." Earlier in the day, while Ana Cabrera was anchoring, legal affairs reporter Fallon Gallagher put a similar spin on the development. After spending much of the segment citing the free speech arguments of the majority, when it came to inserting her own opinion, she concluded: "This has national implications. More than 20 states have laws just like Colorado's on the books. And so this is a major blow to LGBTQ population across the nation." She also made sure to label supporters of conversion therapy as "conservative" but did not label opponents as liberal. Transcripts follow: MS NOW's Ana Cabrera Reports March 31, 2026 11:16 a.m. Eastern ANA CABRERA: We're continuing to follow breaking news out of the Supreme Court this morning -- an 8 to 1 decision and the court backing a challenge to Colorado's ban on LGBT conversion therapy, saying the law raises free speech concerns. MSNOW's Fallon Gallagher is back with us from outside the court. Fallon, an 8 to 1 decision. What did the justice(s) reveal about their thinking? FALLON GALLAGHER, MS NOW LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER: Yeah, this is one of those big cases that we have been waiting for a decision in. And the Supreme Court finding in an 8-1 decision that Colorado's law, which bans gender conversion talk therapy, violates the First Amendment on free speech grounds. Of course, siding with that conservative therapist who brought this challenge against the Colorado law. Like we said, this was an 8-1 decision with Gorsuch writing for the majority. And I want to read you just a portion of what he said because there's some really strong language about the First Amendment. He writes, "The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas and the best means for discovering truth." Now, Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor signed on for a concurring opinion, agreeing with the majority, but having a little bit of a nuance in their thought. And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, of course, the lone dissenter here saying that this is more states have the authority to regulate conduct. And I want to read to you something that she wrote. She says, "The court's opinion misreads our precedents, is unprincipled and unworkable, and will eventually prove untenable for those who rely upon the long recognized responsibility of states to regulate the medical profession for the protection of public health." Of course, making that conduct regulation argument there. But Ana, this is a really big case. This has national implications. More than 20 states have laws just like Colorado's on the books. And so this is a major blow to LGBTQ population across the nation. Ana? (...) MS NOW's Chris Jansing Reports March 31, 2026 12:22 p.m. Eastern CHRIS JANSING: We've got some breaking news, a major blow to LGBTQ rights, and it's coming on Trans Visibility Day. In an 8 to 1 decision, the Supreme Court voted to essentially allow conversion therapy for kids, siding with a Christian therapist in Colorado. But their ruling could impact 20 other states with similar laws. MS NOW's Lisa Rubin is following this for us. Give us the inside. What exactly did this decision say? LISA RUBIN, SENIOR LEGAL REPORTER: The decision said, Chris, by a vote of 8 to 1, that when Colorado banned conversion therapy, they didn't just incidentally infringe on a particular therapist's right to offer talk therapy to her patients -- that essentially the Colorado law was not viewpoint neutral -- that it told her that she could not, for example, offer conversion therapy or anything designed to affirm that a change in sexual orientation or in gender identity would be positive for someone, but allowed her, conversely, to sympathize with or support a patient undergoing a transition in either gender identity or sexual orientation, the court said. That's not viewpoint neutral. That has nothing to do with the content or the subject matter of the speech writ large. But is telling her she cannot express a particular viewpoint and that just because the overall bill was aimed at conversion therapy and medical treatment doesn't mean that the speech part of it was merely incidental, that talk therapy, to the extent that it was prohibited by this bill, has to be allowed. JANSING: So the lone dissent came from Ketanji Brown Jackson. And I want to read part of what she wrote in her dissent.: "The court's opinion misreads our precedence, is unprincipled and unworkable, and will eventually prove untenable for those who rely upon the long recognized responsibility of states to regulate the medical profession for the protection of public health." Explain exactly what she is arguing when it comes to the impact this decision will have. RUBIN: Yeah, I mean, Ketanji Brown Jackson is fundamentally disagreeing with her eight colleagues, saying that where you have a collision between prohibited medical treatments or the setting of a standard of care, medically and free speech, that you have to understand the speech restrictions in the context that is offered here, she says. What the state of Colorado is trying to do is prevent harms, including suicidality, among people who are undergoing transitions either in their gender identity or in their sexual orientation. In that context, she says, the speech infringement here has to be understood as part of Colorado's right to set licensing and professional guidelines for people providing medical care, and therefore speech is not what's dominant here. Their right to set medical standards is. JANSING: Lisa Rubin, thank you for that.