A Colorado man says he fell four stories from a hotel window after a counselor served him psilocybin tea during a therapy session and then left him alone, according to the lawsuit he filed this week.
Jacob Ramirez claims counselor Rachel McGuire left the &#8220;therapy session&#8221; in the hotel room while he was under the influence of psilocybin, commonly known as &#8220;magic mushrooms,&#8221; before he fell from a fourth-floor window onto concrete outside a Hilton Hotel in Colorado Springs last May, as reported by the <a href="https://www.denverpost.com/2026/07/10/psilocybin-therapy-lawsuit-fell-from-window/">Denver Post</a>. Ramirez miraculously survived but suffered severe head and chest injuries, racking up more than $2 million in medical bills. 
Ramirez is suing his counselor and her husband, Sheldon McGuire, along with their therapy companies, A Sparrow’s Way and Restoration Counseling. 
The lawsuit alleges medical and direct negligence, claiming McGuire was not licensed to administer psilocybin therapy and that her husband referred Ramirez to her despite that fact. 
“I think it clearly lends itself to somebody who is not used to taking these types of medications being left alone and freaking out,” Ramirez&#8217;s attorney Jared Mazzei said.
“It’s two parts,” Mazzei added. “There is whether she was even licensed, which she wasn’t — and the other part is did she even, at the very least, follow the procedures that you learn when you are obtaining your license, one of them being to actually stay with the patient the entire time, for this exact reason.”
Mazzei said that Ramirez endured blunt force trauma to his head, has no memory of the event, and experiences daily pain from his injuries. 
At the center of the chaotic legal battle is psilocybin, a psychedelic that Colorado voters chose to decriminalize in 2022 under the Natural Medicine Health Act. Under state <a href="https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/initiative%2520referendum_proposition%20122%20final%20lc%20packet.pdf">law,</a> the drug can be grown, consumed, and shared for personal use or can be utilized by healing centers for therapy. 
Colorado&#8217;s experiment is drawing interest from other states, including <a href="https://www.marijuanamoment.net/bipartisan-north-carolina-lawmakers-say-psychedelic-research-bill-can-help-military-veterans/">North Carolina</a>, where Republican state Rep. Allen Chesser and Republican state Sen. Robert Brinson are backing legislation to fund research into psychedelic substances, including psilocybin. 
Brinson, who is the lead sponsor of the Healing through Evidence-based Access to Lifesaving Care (HEAL) Act, called the bill a &#8220;real investment&#8221; into &#8220;mental health innovation, research, and access,&#8221; particularly for those who have experienced trauma.
He believes “momentum is building” for legalizing psychedelics.
“These aren’t fringe ideas,&#8221; said Chesser. &#8220;They are on the path to becoming approved medicines.”
<a href="https://www.wwlp.com/news/massachusetts/two-years-after-ballot-defeat-house-revives-psychedelics-debate/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Massachusetts</a> lawmakers this week approved a five-year pilot program that would allow licensed mental health clinics to offer supervised psychedelic-assisted therapy, despite voters rejecting a broader legalization measure just two years ago. The proposal still requires Senate approval and the governor&#8217;s signature. It would help fund, facilitate, and expand research on &#8220;psychedelic-assisted therapies.&#8221;
Critics, however, are warning against the potential harms and unexpected risks that come with drug legalization. Organizations like the <a href="https://gooddrugpolicy.org/">Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions</a> and <a href="https://learnaboutsam.org/">Smart Approaches to Marijuana</a> (SAM) are among the few.
“Colorado was sold a miracle. Instead, we’re getting a warning label,” cautioned Kevin Sabet, who is president and CEO of both groups. 
“This lawsuit is a reminder that psychedelic mushrooms are not the harmless cure-all proponents promised. If states like North Carolina are considering going down this road, Colorado should serve as the cautionary tale — not the blueprint,” he added.

Mushroom Season Has Started In The Netherlands.

Bad Trip? Lawsuit Says ‘Magic Mushroom’ Therapy Ended In 4-Story Fall

Colorado

Drugs

Health

Lawsuit

Medical Research

Psychedelics

A longtime Democrat senator’s bid to become governor of Colorado ended on Tuesday in another embarrassing defeat for the Democratic establishment. 
Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser upset Senator Michael Bennet to earn the Democratic nomination to replace outgoing Governor Jared Polis. With about 90% of the vote in by Wednesday morning, Weiser had 56% to Bennet’s 44%.
“We did it! Thank you to all who believed in this movement, donated, knocked on doors, hosted events, &amp; voted! Tonight it&#8217;s clear the future of CO doesn’t belong to out-of-state billionaires or corporations; it belongs to us. I promise to be a Governor for all of us,” Weiser’s campaign posted on X. “Thank you!”
Bennet, who has been in the Senate since 2009, had the backing of Colorado Senator John Hickenlooper and three of the state’s congressional representatives. He also had a significant financial edge over Weiser. 
Both candidates made attacking President Donald Trump a focal point of their campaigns. In his concession speech, Bennet continued to attack Trump. 
“Donald Trump has made matters so much worse. He is trying to convince Americans to hate each other just to serve his own selfish purposes,” he said. “Donald Trump, as I&#8217;ve said during the course of the campaign, is the worst president in American history.”
Weiser, who sued the Trump administration over 60 times during his time as state attorney general, says on his campaign page that he will “defend reproductive rights,” ensure “access to gender-affirming care,” and combat climate change. 
The Democrat is expected to win in November as Colorado has not elected a Republican governor in decades. Former Vice President Kamala Harris also defeated Trump in the state by over 10 points in 2024. 
Colorado’s primaries also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/socialist-hot-streak-continues-as-radical-leftist-unseats-15-term-democrat?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Brecca+Stoll&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=Socialist+Hot+Streak+Continues+As+Radical+Leftist+Unseats+15-Term+Democrat">featured an upset</a> with far-Left Democratic socialist Melat Kiros defeating longtime incumbent Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) for the nomination in Colorado’s 1st congressional district. Kiros ran on a platform of abolishing ICE, jacking up corporate tax rates, and transitioning away from traditional policing. 
Hickenlooper, Bennet&#8217;s fellow Democrat senator, also performed poorly, but managed to fend off a leftist challenger by just 10 points.
The Colorado results come just one week after a number of Democratic socialists won in New York despite opposition from more traditional Democrats, causing panic in the party.

HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr Testifies At Senate Finance Hearing

Dem Senator’s Governor Bid Collapses In Embarrassing Defeat

Democratic Party

Donald Trump

Senate

Democratic socialist Melat Kiros upset incumbent Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) in the primary for Colorado&#8217;s 1st congressional district on Tuesday night as the far-Left continues its hot streak in Democratic contests.
With 93% of the vote counted as of Wednesday morning, Kiros <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-primary-elections/colorado-us-house-district-1-results">holds</a> 51.3% to DeGette&#8217;s 41.7%, with Wanda James, another candidate in the race, taking 7%.
DeGette, who has held the House seat for as long as 29-year-old Kiros has been alive, will likely be replaced by Kiros after the general election. Kiros will be heavily favored over Republican nominee Christy Peterson in the general election in a district that last elected a Republican in 1970.
Kiros, endorsed by democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), <a href="https://www.kirosforco.com/priorities-2#">wants</a> to increase publicly owned housing, make college tuition free, hike the corporate tax rate from 21% to 50%, end at-will employment, create an AI moratorium, abolish ICE, allow gender-affirming care for all ages, and invest in &#8220;community-based&#8221; emergency response teams over police.
Kiros, who was born in Ethiopia and immigrated to the United States with her parents when she was an infant, also <a href="https://x.com/EYakoby/status/2072145312743915590">proposed</a> giving immediate citizenship to all illegal immigrants in the United States.
&#8220;Abolishing ICE is just one step &#8230; I think there has to be an immediate pathway for every single undocumented immigrant that&#8217;s here in this country today that doesn&#8217;t require them to shell out thousands of dollars to go through the process,&#8221; she said.
The leftist Democrat has also faced criticism over recent <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/october-7-comments-put-dsa-backed-candidate-under-scrutiny?author=Leona+Salinas&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=October+7+Comments+Put+DSA-Backed+Candidate+Under+Scrutiny">comments</a> she made on the 9/11 and October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks, arguing that 9/11 was the result of American foreign policy and October 7 was “the inevitable consequence of apartheid.”
Kiros has spent the majority of the last decade in school, obtaining an economics and political science degree from Washington College, a law degree from Notre Dame, and is currently pursuing her PhD in public affairs at the University of Colorado. She currently works as a barista while running for Congress. 
She was an attorney for about 15 months before she was fired after criticizing her own law firm and other firms for signing a <a href="https://aboutblaw.com/bbju">statement</a> that pushed for deans to address antisemitic language and protests on college campuses after Hamas&#8217; October 7 attack on Israel. In her own letter in November 2023, Kiros <a href="https://medium.com/@melatakiros/dear-us-law-firms-77ec63e838af">claimed</a> she was confused why calls for the elimination of the Israeli state were seen as antisemitic. 
Kiros is the latest democratic socialist to cruise to a primary victory after three radical leftists won their primaries in New York last week. Some sitting Democrats are embracing the radical newcomers. 
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/influential-dem-doubles-down-on-partys-hard-left-turn-after-socialist-primary-sweeps?author=Brecca+Stoll&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=6&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Influential+Dem+Doubles+Down+on+Party%E2%80%99s+Hard-Left+Turn+After+Socialist+Primary+Sweeps">said</a> after New York&#8217;s wins there is &#8220;a new, strong, and bold Democratic party.&#8221; On Tuesday, New York City democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani claimed socialists &#8220;not only understood economics&#8221; but they can right the so-called wrongs created by capitalism. 
Kiros told SiriusXM radio, &#8220;People are seeing that capitalism is responsible for a lot of the degradation that we&#8217;re seeing in our economy, in our democracy, in our climate.&#8221; She attributes socialism&#8217;s rise to people &#8220;demanding a new way to organize our economy, our government and making sure that&#8217;s all centered on working families and protecting basic needs.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Melat Kiros: “People are seeing that capitalism is responsible for a lot of the degradation that we’re seeing in our economy, in our democracy, in our climate and they’re demanding a new way to organize our economy, our government and making sure that’s all centered on working… <a href="https://t.co/SKwvzP8KIt">pic.twitter.com/SKwvzP8KIt</a>
— Marco Foster (@MarcoFoster_) <a href="https://x.com/MarcoFoster_/status/2072069801867129156?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2026</a></blockquote>

League of Women Voters forum

Socialist Hot Streak Continues As Radical Leftist Unseats 15-Term Democrat

Democratic Socialism

Democrats

Election

A Jewish student was <a href="https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-899834#google_vignette">choked and strangled</a> by a classmate in a December 2025 antisemitic attack at a Boulder, Colorado, middle school, and a federal civil rights complaint has <a href="https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-files-title-vi-complaint-against-colorado-school-district-alleging">just been filed</a> alleging the district failed to adequately protect him, according to documents submitted to the U.S. Department of Education&#8217;s Office for Civil Rights.
The <a href="https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2026-06/title-vi-complaint-boulder-valley-school-district-6-15-26-redacted.pdf">complaint</a>, filed last week by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) on behalf of the student and his family, alleges that Boulder Valley School District failed in its legal obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin and has been interpreted to cover antisemitic harassment in schools receiving federal funding.
According to the filing, the student — identified only as Student A to protect his safety and privacy — was physically assaulted at Southern Hills Middle School by a peer who targeted him because he is Jewish. The complaint states:
<blockquote>
The harassment began with antisemitic remarks directed at Student A on the soccer field by classmates. As described further below, it escalated rapidly to include verbal slurs (including repeated use of the word “kike” directed at Student A), threats (including of gun violence), and Nazi salutes in 2024, and progressed to repeated physical assaults (including strangulation), antisemitic taunting in the lunch line, after school and in class (including organization of a game called “Jew touch tag” in PE, in which Jews are chased), and Holocaust-related mockery (including a student telling Student A in math class, “at least my grandma didn’t spend 8 years in hiding,” and asking Student A, “do you get scared when someone raises their hand?” and “do you get scared when someone counts to nine?”). 
The most violent incident occurred on December 15, 2025, when a classmate fashioned a Chromebook charging cord into a lasso, threw it around Student A’s neck without warning or provocation, and dragged Student A backward from a chair while calling Student A a “stupid kike” — conduct so severe it resulted in a police report. &#8230;
That incident was followed by a February 26, 2026, incident in which a former friend of Student A threatened to bring his father’s gun to school to shoot people and then stated in Student A’s Spanish class that “Hitler should have killed all the Jews when he had the chance”; a March 2026 assault in which a fellow student punched and kicked Student A multiple times; and an April 2026 incident in which a fellow student approached Student A while Student A was playing basketball alone at recess and spat in Student A’s face. </blockquote>
The ADL says the family notified school officials and district administrators each time they learned of incidents involving Student A, and they are prepared to provide email records corroborating those notifications.
Particularly troubling, the complaint alleges, is that a teacher who was present during the assault told a Boulder Police Department detective that she did not report the attack to school administrators. That admission is contained in a police report attached to the federal filing.
The district did conduct a bullying investigation, with a report dated December 15, 2025, and one student believed responsible received what was described as a week-long suspension — though the complainants say they are uncertain whether that student actually served the full suspension.
A second police report related to a separate incident has also been requested by the complainants, but as of the filing date they had not yet received a copy from the Boulder Police Department.
The complaint further cites the district&#8217;s own policies — including Boulder Valley School District policy governing student conduct — arguing that the school&#8217;s response fell short of its own stated standards, let alone federal civil rights requirements.
The filing comes amid a national surge in reported antisemitic incidents, including in K-12 schools. Civil rights advocates say physical assaults targeting Jewish students remain underreported and under-disciplined, and that schools have a binding legal obligation to respond meaningfully when harassment rises to the level of a hostile environment.

Jewish student

The Antisemitic Horror Story Jewish Student Faced Inside School Walls

antisemitism

High School

Jewish

Former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters is a free woman after being <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/06/01/us-news/trump-ally-tina-peters-released-from-prison-after-dem-colorado-gov-commutes-sentence-for-trying-to-overturn-2020-election/">released</a> from a Colorado correctional facility on Monday, ending a dark chapter of weaponized, partisan governance in the Centennial State. Her release comes after Colorado’s Democratic Governor Jared Polis succumbed to relentless pressure from the White House, ultimately commuting her absurdly punitive sentence.
Peters, 70, had served less than a quarter of her original nine-year sentence before Polis formally intervened. While left-wing commentators and activist state officials are busy wringing their hands over her release, the truth that the mainstream media wants to ignore is that Peters’ original punishment was never about blind justice. It was a politically motivated hit job designed to make an example out of a grandmother who dared to ask questions about the 2020 election.
Even the Colorado Court of Appeals — hardly a bastion of conservative thought — was forced to admit earlier this year that the trial court went way over the line. In April, a three-judge appellate panel completely threw out Peters’ original nine-year sentence. Why? Because the trial judge, Matthew Barrett, let his partisan TDS show, using his bench to launch a <a href="https://www.cpr.org/2026/04/02/tina-peters-appeal/">blistering, vindictive tirade</a> against Peters. Barrett openly mocked her as a &#8220;charlatan&#8221; and a &#8220;snake-oil saleswoman,&#8221; making it glaringly obvious that he wasn’t punishing her actions, but rather her First Amendment-protected speech and skepticism regarding Dominion Voting Systems.
&nbsp;
<iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; border: 0; height: auto;" title="DW Player" src="https://public.dailywire.com/preroll-player/embed.html?playback-id=NJImACtyd8qr901jiXzUj00P9jus01iozN02&amp;ad-tag-url=https%3A%2F%2Fpubads.g.doubleclick.net%2Fgampad%2Fads%3Fiu%3D%2F61914415%2Fdw.video.article%26description_url%3Ddailywire.com%26url%3D%26tfcd%3D0%26npa%3D0%26sz%3D640x480%26min_ad_duration%3D5000%26max_ad_duration%3D60000%26gdfp_req%3D1%26unviewed_position_start%3D1%26vpos%3Dpreroll%26output%3Dvast%26plcmt%3D1%26env%3Dvp%26vpa%3Dclick%26vpmute%3D0%26impl%3Ds%26correlator%3D%5Bcachebuster%5D" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
&nbsp;
The appellate court rightly noted that the trial court’s nasty rhetoric went far beyond relevant considerations, effectively exposing that the lengthy prison term was a direct punishment for her refusal to bow to the establishment&#8217;s narrative.
Governor Polis, facing a masterclass in political pressure from the Trump administration — which included relocating U.S. Space Command out of Colorado and slashing federal grants — finally saw the writing on the wall. When Polis issued the commutation, he openly admitted that the nine-year sentence handed down to a first-time, non-violent offender was an &#8220;obvious outlier&#8221; and &#8220;unusually harsh.&#8221; He even pointed out the blatant double standard in his state, comparing Peters&#8217; draconian treatment to the slap-on-the-wrist probation given to former Democratic State Senator Sonya Jaquez Lewis for similar charges of attempting to influence a public servant.
Predictably, the partisan Democrats who weaponized the state&#8217;s legal system against Peters are throwing a tantrum. Far-left Secretary of State Jena Griswold — the same activist who tried to kick Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot — released a <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/06/01/us-news/trump-ally-tina-peters-released-from-prison-after-dem-colorado-gov-commutes-sentence-for-trying-to-overturn-2020-election/?utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=nypost&amp;utm_source=twitter">statement</a> claiming Peters’ release would &#8220;embolden the election denier movement.&#8221;
But the facts speak for themselves. Tina Peters was a 70-year-old public servant with no prior record, thrown into a maximum-security prison for trying to preserve election data. The establishment wanted her broken. Instead, the system&#8217;s overreach was exposed, proving once and for all that her nine-year sentence was nothing more than a vindictive, tyrannical abuse of power.

Colorado Republican State Assembly 2026

The Election ‘Denier’ Democrats Couldn’t Keep Behind Bars

2020 Election

Tina Peters

May 15 (Reuters) &#8211; Colorado Democratic Governor Jared Polis granted clemency on Friday to former county elections clerk Tina Peters, a Trump ally who was convicted of tampering with voting machines as she pursued concerns that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen.
Polis wrote in his clemency letter to Peters that he was commuting her nine-year prison sentence to time already served and ordering her release on parole effective June 1. Prior to gaining clemency, Peters, 70, would not have been eligible for release until November 2028.
&#8220;Thank you Governor Polis,&#8221; Peters posted on X. &#8220;I have learned and grown during my time in prison and going forward I will make sure that my actions always follow the law, and I will avoid the mistakes of the past.&#8221;
Peters was one of 44 individuals to whom Polis granted clemency on Friday.
&#8220;The Clemency power is a serious responsibility, and not one that I take lightly,&#8221; Polis <a href="https://governorsoffice.colorado.gov/governor/news/governor-polis-announces-clemency-actions">said</a> in a statement. &#8220;This power has the ability to change lives &#8211; help grant a second chance for someone who has made grave mistakes &#8211; and it comes with great consideration, and sometimes even controversy.&#8221;
Peters, a Republican, was an outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump&#8217;s claims that he lost the 2020 White House race to Democrat Joe Biden because of widespread election fraud.
Peters was the clerk of Mesa County when she was indicted in 2022, following an election security breach at her office that led to the posting of voting equipment passwords on a political blog. She denied wrongdoing but was convicted in 2024 on seven charges, including three counts of attempting to influence a public servant. She was acquitted on three other charges.
Last year, President Trump ordered the Department of Justice &#8220;to help secure the release&#8221; of Peters, saying she was prosecuted &#8220;for political reasons.&#8221; He said Peters was an &#8220;innocent American&#8221; whose incarceration was &#8220;unjust.&#8221; In December, Trump pardoned her, but a Colorado court ruled that he had no authority to do so since she was convicted on state charges. Trump lashed out at Polis that same month, accusing the governor of being beholden to transnational gangs.
&#8220;The governor of Colorado is a weak and pathetic man who was run by Tren de Aragua,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;The criminals from Venezuela took over sections of Colorado. And he was afraid to do anything, but he puts Tina in jail for nine years because she caught people cheating.&#8221;
(Reporting by Daphne Psaledakis and Steve Gorman; Writing by Steve Gorman; Editing by Michelle Nichols and Bill Berkrot)

Blue State Governor Commutes Prison Sentence Of Pro-Trump Election Official

Clemency

Jared Polis

This piece is part of MI x DW, a collaboration that brings Daily Wire readers exclusive commentary and research from the Manhattan Institute’s world-class team of scholars.
In this piece, Joseph Figliolia unpacks the Supreme Court&#8217;s recent decision to strike down a Colorado ban on certain kinds of therapy for patients with gender dysphoria. While the decision does not resolve the debate entirely, Figliolia stresses its importance, noting that it revived an important debate in the medical community and clears the way for real progress.
***
Last month, the Supreme Court struck down Colorado&#8217;s ban on so-called “conversion therapy” for patients with gender confusion.
The 8-1 decision on Chiles v. Salazar is not just consequential for constitutional law but for the future of gender medicine. In striking down Colorado’s law, the Court ruling put a stop to a dangerous regime of viewpoint-based censorship in medicine. The decision raises <a href="https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/conversion_therapy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">serious constitutional questions</a> for similar laws on the books in 22 other states.
The suit was brought by a licensed mental health counselor, Kaley Chiles, who was prevented from talking with clients in ways that could help them reconcile their mind and body. Instead, the state insisted she unambiguously affirm and facilitate “gender transitions.”
Lower courts accepted the argument that these laws merely regulate professional conduct, subject only to minimal constitutional scrutiny. The Supreme Court rejected that logic. When the state restricts what a therapist can say based on the viewpoint expressed, it triggers the highest level of First Amendment protection.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s lone dissent reflects the prevailing view within much of the medical establishment: that “conversion” practices are inherently harmful, and that gender identity exists as a fixed and natural category within the spectrum of human diversity. But this position rests on contested assumptions about the evidence base and about the nature of gender identity itself.
Much of the research cited to justify these bans focuses on sexual orientation change efforts in adults, not therapeutic approaches addressing gender dysphoria in minors. In recent years, advocacy groups and <a href="https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/sexual-orientation-change" target="_blank" rel="noopener">professional associations</a> have expanded the definition of “conversion therapy” to include nearly any attempt to explore or resolve gender-related distress without immediate affirmation — collapsing fundamentally different clinical questions into a single prohibited category.
Yet gender dysphoria in youth is not <a href="https://segm.org/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis-desistance-germany" target="_blank" rel="noopener">diagnostically stable</a>. Researchers have found that many children who experience early dysphoria grow out of it by the end of puberty.
<h3 dir="ltr"><a href="https://manhattan.institute/subscribe?utm_source=DailyWire&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=reihan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click here for more Manhattan Institute content.</a></h3>
At the same time, the number of young people identifying as transgender has risen dramatically in recent years. Using CDC data, the psychologist Jean Twenge estimated that <a href="https://www.generationtechblog.com/p/transgender-identity-how-much-has" target="_blank" rel="noopener">trans-identification increased 422%</a> among 18–24-year-olds between 2014 and 2023, notably with no corresponding increase among adults older than 35. This suggests that trans-identification&#8217;s “<a href="https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-casualties-of-concept-creep" target="_blank" rel="noopener">concept creep</a>” is trickling down into young people’s self-concepts and uniting otherwise distinct clinical populations under a single “transgender” <a href="https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender-people-gender-identity-gender-expression" target="_blank" rel="noopener">umbrella</a>.
None of this proves that any single therapeutic approach is correct. But it does underscore the need for open clinical inquiry — not legal mandates that enforce one model while prohibiting others.
An affirmation-only approach risks flattening complex psychological and developmental factors into a single predetermined outcome. Such adherence to ideological conformity has gotten us a <a href="https://x.com/benryanwriter/status/2017471549536661927" target="_blank" rel="noopener">list of malpractice suits</a> and the recent landmark <a href="https://www.thefp.com/p/a-legal-first-that-could-change-gender" target="_blank" rel="noopener">$2 million payout to Fox Varian</a>, who underwent a double mastectomy at sixteen despite a complex and troubling psychiatric and family history.
This should not come as a surprise. Many patients presenting with gender-related distress also experience significant psychiatric comorbidities, and their cases often require careful, individualized assessment.
As a Department of Health and Human Services report on pediatric gender dysphoria <a href="https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/gender-dysphoria-report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">convincingly argues</a>, psychotherapy is preferred as a first-line treatment for gender dysphoria because it possesses a more favorable risk-benefit ratio than medical interventions, which have only “low certainty” evidence for benefit according to evidence reviews. This view is supported by a <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.70533" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nationwide cohort study of Finland</a>, which found patient populations after 2010 displayed more complex psychiatric needs both before and after clinic referral — many of which were not resolved by medical transition.
Clinicians should be free to explore these various treatment options with their patients. Yet laws like Colorado’s effectively prohibit that exploration, enforcing an ideological boundary around acceptable care.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles does not resolve the broader medical debate. But it does something equally important: it reopens the space for that debate to occur.
If mental health care is to remain grounded in evidence, ethics, and individualized treatment, it cannot be governed by laws that dictate conclusions in advance. The Court has recognized that when the state mandates one viewpoint while silencing others, it is no longer regulating medicine — it is enforcing orthodoxy.
That is a dangerous precedent. And, at least for now, one the Constitution still forbids.
Joseph Figliolia is a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute.

President Biden Delivers State Of The Union Address

How The Supreme Court Dismantled The ‘Conversion Therapy’ Lie

MI x DW

Supreme Court

Transgender

The U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-hands-down-major-conservative-win-in-near-unanimous-decision">ruled</a> on March 31 in <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/chiles-v-salazar/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">Chiles v. Salazar</a> that voluntary conversations between a counselor and her young clients are protected under the First Amendment’s free speech clause. This monumental decision condemned the state’s unlawful and, according to the court, “egregious” attempt to censor discussions about biological reality in the counseling room.
In my role with Alliance Defending Freedom, I had the privilege of standing before the high court last fall and advocating on behalf of licensed Colorado counselor Kaley Chiles, who challenged the state’s counseling censorship law.
Kaley wants to provide what so many children and families are desperate for: A listening ear and compassionate advice as kids talk through what it feels like to wrestle with their identity and body. As more and more young people across the country are becoming distressed about their gender or sexuality, they want a professional to talk to about their feelings and struggles. The young clients who seek out Kaley for advice do so because they want to grow comfortable with their bodies and avoid harmful drugs and procedures.
<div id="attachment_1073215" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1073215" class="size-large wp-image-1073215" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-864x576.jpg" alt="Source: Alliance Defending Freedom" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-2048x1366.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Source: Alliance Defending Freedom</div>
Colorado’s law forbids Kaley from having those voluntary conversations with her clients under age 18. Indeed, the law violates her freedom of speech by prohibiting licensed counselors like her from engaging in voluntary counseling conversations with minor clients who want to change some expression, behavior, identity, or feeling associated with their “sexual orientation or gender identity.”
On the issue of gender identity, the law only censors counseling conversations in one direction. It allows conversations that push young people toward a gender identity different from their sex but forbids conversations that help them grow comfortable with their body and realign their identity with their sex when they desire to do that. The law also threatens severe penalties, including thousands of dollars in fines, suspension from practice, and even revocation of the counselor’s license.
This one-sided censorship comes amidst a growing national mental-health crisis and prevents many Colorado children from obtaining the counseling that they desire and that could help them. Roughly 90% of children who experience gender dysphoria before puberty will regain comfort with their sex if not pushed toward harmful drugs and procedures.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court explained, “We do not doubt that the question ‘how best to help minors’ struggling with issues of gender identity or sexual orientation is presently a subject of ‘fierce public debate.’ But Colorado’s law addressing conversion therapy does not just ban physical interventions. In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint.”
“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety,” the court continued. “Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But 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 as the best means for discovering truth. However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”
<div id="attachment_1073217" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1073217" class="size-large wp-image-1073217" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-864x576.jpg" alt="Source: Alliance Defending Freedom" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-2048x1366.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Source: Alliance Defending Freedom</div>
This is a massive win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children. The decision will help end the authoritarian days of Colorado inserting itself into the counseling room and silencing good counselors from speaking body-affirming messages their clients want to hear. It also takes us a long way down the road to ensuring that kids in Colorado, and around the country, who desire to embrace and live consistent with their sex are free to seek help by talking to licensed counselors like Kaley.
Significantly, the Supreme Court’s ruling will help protect counselors from similar laws in more than 20 states and over 100 localities across the country, giving them a path forward to help struggling youth seeking professional guidance.
From professional groups to medical malpractice verdicts, the tide is turning on how we as a society help young people struggling with gender issues. Those kids need quality counseling, not a one-way path to dangerous body-altering drugs and surgeries. All children deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made. The Supreme Court affirms that the First Amendment protects those messages in the counseling room.
* * *
Jim Campbell is chief legal counsel with <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal">@ADFLegal</a>) and argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Kaley Chiles in Chiles v. Salazar.

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Policy Gets Supreme Court Hearing

The Court Just Said The Government Can’t Control What Your Child’s Counselor Says

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Conversion Therapy

Counseling

First Amendment

Free Speech

Gender

LGBTQ

Opinion

SCOTUS

Ketanji Brown Jackson Needs To Be Impeached. This Dangerously Idiotic Dissent Is Proof.

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Matt Walsh

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar. The basic concept of the Supreme Court ruling was that the state of Colorado was wrong to ban what is called conversion therapy. 
The 2019 Colorado law prohibited licensed mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with patients under 18 years of age. They defined conversion therapy to include any practice or treatment that attempts to change an individual&#8217;s sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as any effort to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions toward individuals of the same sex.
That same law allowed counselors to provide “acceptance, support, and understanding for identity exploration and development,” and to assist persons “undergoing gender transition.”
In other words, the Colorado law said that if a kid comes to you with gender confusion, you are not allowed to say, “Boys are boys and girls are girls. Let&#8217;s help you be more comfortable in your body.”
If a boy says, “I&#8217;m a girl, “you have to affirm him. And if you don&#8217;t affirm him, you&#8217;re engaged in conversion therapy, and you can be prosecuted under the law in the state of Colorado.
If a kid comes to you and says, “Listen, I&#8217;m confused about my feelings of sexual attraction,” you&#8217;re not allowed to talk that through and say, “You know what? You&#8217;re 14 years old. A lot of people are confused about sexual attraction at 14 years old. You&#8217;re being hit by hormones that you&#8217;ve never experienced before, and you really don&#8217;t have any sort of clear line as to how to live your life, so let&#8217;s talk this thing through.”
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2400-sub?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
That might be conversion therapy, because that could be construed as an attempt to change behavior, or eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction toward individuals of the same sex.
Instead, you&#8217;re supposed to just give that kid a Pride flag and tell them to get out there and march.
The plaintiff in this case, Kelly Chiles, holds a master&#8217;s degree in clinical mental health and a state counseling license in Colorado.
According to the Supreme Court, Chiles doesn&#8217;t start counseling with any predetermined goals. Instead, she sits down with clients, discusses their goals, and then formulates methods of counseling that will most benefit them, seeking throughout to respect their client&#8217;s fundamental right of self-determination, matters of sexuality and gender. The clients sometimes have different agendas, according to the Supreme Court; some are perfectly happy being gay or lesbian or transgender identifying, and others want to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, or change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with their bodies.
Under Colorado law, those last people are just plumb out of luck. There&#8217;s nothing they can do. Because if you, for example, are a person who has a fetish and you don&#8217;t want to have that fetish anymore, according to Colorado law, you are not allowed as a therapist to try to change an individual&#8217;s behaviors regarding sexual or romantic attraction.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, who is not a strict textualist when it comes to these matters, wrote the opinion, and his basic opinion is pretty simple: The First Amendment allows therapists to say what they want to say during therapy. 
The only person who voted in dissent was, of course — wait for it — Ketanji Brown Jackson, the dumbest person on the Supreme Court.
This is saying a lot because Sonia Sotomayor is also on the Supreme Court.
Gorsuch wrote:
<blockquote>Consistent with the First Amendment’s jealous protections for the individual’s right to think and speak freely, this Court has long held that laws regulating speech based on its subject matter or “communicative content” are “presumptively unconstitutional.” &#8230; We have recognized, as well, the even greater dangers associated with regulations that discriminate based on the speaker’s point of view.</blockquote>
In other words, the big problem here is that it&#8217;s not just that Colorado is putting regulations on speech; those regulations on speech are content-dependent. Colorado says you can say these things that we agree with, but you cannot say these things with which we disagree.
Gorsuch continued:
<blockquote>While the First Amendment protects many and varied forms of expression, the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech. And that is exactly the kind of expression in which Ms. Chiles seeks to engage. As a talk therapist, all Ms. Chiles does is speak with clients; she does not prescribe medication, use medical devices, or employ any physical methods. &#8230;
Consider, too, where the State and dissent’s logic leads. Not long ago, many medical experts and organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association, considered homosexuality a mental disorder. On the view Colorado and the dissent advance, a law adopted during that era prohibiting counselors from engaging in the “substandard care” of affirming their clients’ homosexuality would have been subject to only rational-basis or intermediate-scrutiny review—and likely upheld. Today, tomorrow, and forever, too, any professional speech that deviates from “current beliefs about the safety and efficacy of various medical treatments” could be silenced with relative ease.</blockquote>
In other words, the court is saying, “If Colorado is suggesting that a state can determine what is the best course of care with regard to opinions on open matters of gender and sexuality, and then mandate that sort of stuff on subject matter basis, that is violation of free speech.”
The court goes out of its way to really slap Jackson. That last statement — “Today, tomorrow, and forever, too, any professional speech that deviates from ‘current beliefs about the safety and efficacy of various medical treatments’ could be silenced with relative ease,” is followed by this: “It is a consequence Colorado freely acknowledges. And one the dissent embraces.”
The opinion then cites Buck v. Bell. That is a scathing rebuttal to Jackson, because Buck v. Bell was the case that suggested that you had the ability under the law to sexually sterilize inmates of institutions, because that was the prevailing science of the time. Jackson has said that she liked that law.
Jackson said in the Chiles case that Colorado was simply “restricting a dangerous therapy modality,” adding that the court&#8217;s opinion was “unprincipled and unworkable.” She followed with a long statement about how wonderful the gender orientation of left-wing philosophy is.
Ketanji Brown Jackson&#8217;s dissent is a reminder that if the Left had complete control over the mechanisms of government, it would simply regulate into law all of the most specious and idiotic views about science.
Without President Trump as president, we were super-close to that world, because President Trump is responsible for several selections on the Supreme Court. In this case, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor ruled with the majority. 
But if there were a bunch of Democratic appointees on the court, is that how this would have gone?

Blue Hour, United States Supreme Court Building, Washington DC, America

Supreme Court Ends Colorado’s War On Reality

Ben Shapiro

Mental Health

Teenagers

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Tuesday in favor of a Christian counselor who challenged a Colorado law she said could punish her for helping gender-confused children become comfortable with their own bodies instead of pursuing irreversible transgender medical procedures.
The case pitted the State of Colorado against counselor Kaley Chiles, who challenged a Colorado law that <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_1129_signed.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">prohibited</a> counseling that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” Chiles said that the law violates her First Amendment rights and has prevented her from accepting several clients.
&#8220;We conclude that the courts below failed to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny in this case. Start with the most obvious point. While the First Amendment protects many and varied forms of expression, the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech. And that is exactly the kind of expression in which Ms. Chiles seeks to engage,&#8221; Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.
Chiles, who was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), argued that Colorado’s law, passed in 2019, is a direct attack on professional speech.
&#8220;I hope this win for free speech will fuel a greater pursuit of truth. Both amongst the professionals and in the counseling room,&#8221; Chiles said on Tuesday in a press briefing attended by The Daily Wire. &#8220;Our kids deserve it.  The law I&#8217;m challenging harms kids and silences speech. Kids deserve real help, affirming that their bodies are not a mistake, and that they are wonderfully made. I&#8217;m grateful that my speech is protected.&#8221;
Chiles said the ruling would preserve more options for families.
&#8220;I am thrilled that the ruling will help struggling kids and families who are seeking professional guidance consistent with biological reality,&#8221; she said.
The court agreed that Colorado&#8217;s law did not hold up to First Amendment scrutiny.
&#8220;Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, as applied to Ms. Chiles’s talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny,&#8221; the majority held.
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter.
Jackson said in her dissent that Colorado&#8217;s law was constitutional because it was the state regulating healthcare.
&#8220;In my view, it cannot also be the case that Colorado’s decision to restrict a dangerous therapy modality that, incidentally, involves provider speech is presumptively unconstitutional,&#8221; she said. &#8220;In concluding otherwise, 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.&#8221;
Jim Campbell, who argued the case for Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Wire that the 8-1 decision was a major affirmation of free speech.
&#8220;It sends a message that viewpoint discrimination is egregious,&#8221; he said. &#8220;It is a really significant vote of confidence for the First Amendment. It is a condemnation of viewpoint discrimination, and it is a recognition that counselors must be free to have voluntary conversations with clients who are seeking their help.&#8221;
The ruling is expected to have broad implications for similar laws, called &#8220;conversion therapy bans,&#8221; across the country. Over 20 states have passed similar statutes and could now be in legal jeopardy.
Conservative groups like the American Principles Project praised the ruling from the court.
&#8220;The Supreme Court delivered a landmark victory for religious believers, parents, and, most importantly, vulnerable children,&#8221; said American Principles Project President Terry Schilling. &#8220;Colorado Democrats have shown they will stomp on the rights of anyone who stands in the way of the well-heeled gay and transgender lobby—whether it is bakers, doctors, or desperate families.&#8221;

MixCollage-31-Mar-2026-09-29-AM-4011

Supreme Court Hands Down Major Conservative Win In Near-Unanimous Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-on-colorado-dispute-over-climate-change/">announced</a> Monday that it will take up a major climate change lawsuit targeting the energy industry — a case that could determine the future of similar lawsuits filed by left-wing states and municipalities across the country.
The Court agreed to review Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. They granted the hearing after the Colorado Supreme Court allowed Boulder County’s state-law claims to proceed, rejecting arguments from energy producers that the lawsuit is preempted by federal law. 
The decision comes amid a wave of nearly three dozen lawsuits brought by leftist jurisdictions seeking to hold oil and gas companies financially liable for alleged climate change damages.
Boulder County’s lawsuit accuses energy companies of knowingly contributing to climate change and claims the resulting environmental effects have caused millions of dollars in damage to local property and residents. Energy producers have countered that such claims attempt to regulate interstate and global emissions through state tort law, an approach they argue is incompatible with the Constitution and federal environmental statutes.
Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s intervention signals concern about allowing state courts to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/woke-lawfare-is-the-latest-frontier-for-the-lefts-antidemocratic-attacks-report-says">set</a> national energy and climate policy.
Christopher Mills, a constitutional attorney and former law clerk to Clarence Thomas, said the Court is correctly recognizing the national stakes involved. “The Court&#8217;s action shows that it rightly recognizes that this is a national issue in need of an immediate national resolution,” Mills <a href="https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_8d590b75-5787-4f63-8784-8a722960477b.html">said</a>. “Letting these copycat lawsuits fester in state courts across the country is a recipe for uncertainty, undermining American energy production and harming consumers.”
Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, described the case as a test of whether local governments can effectively impose national policy through litigation. “For years, trial lawyers and left-wing municipalities have used state law as a backdoor to impose their preferred energy policies on the entire country — without a vote, without Congress, and without accountability,” Zywicki said, adding that the Constitution does not permit such an end run around federal authority.
Former Bush administration official John Shu emphasized that greenhouse gas emissions, by definition, do not respect state borders, placing them squarely within Congress’s regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause and the Clean Air Act.
Boulder County, for its part, argued that Supreme Court review is premature because the case has not reached a final judgment. The justices nevertheless agreed to hear the dispute and directed the parties to address whether the Court has jurisdiction to review the case at this stage. 
The incentive for Boulder to resist Supreme Court review right now is that State and local governments have generally had more success keeping these climate lawsuits alive in friendly state courts, where judges have been willing to treat them as traditional nuisance or consumer-protection cases. Once the Supreme Court weighs in, especially on the federal preemption question, a ruling against Boulder could wipe out not just this case but dozens of similar lawsuits nationwide in one stroke.
Oral arguments are expected in the fall, with a decision likely in 2026, and one that could determine whether state courts may continue serving as battlegrounds for national climate policy or whether such questions must remain with Congress.

Supreme Court Releases Opinions

How The Left-Wing Climate Crusade May Be Nearing Its Breaking Point

Supreme Court Takes Up Case To Determine If States Can Sue Energy Companies Over Climate Change

Climate Change

Energy

Menu