When the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed Colorado’s conversion-therapy ban with an 8-1 ruling last week, Sacramento did not wait around. Today, San Francisco Sen. Scott Wiener had rolled out Senate Bill 934, a malpractice-focused backup that would let survivors sue for damages and give many of them more time to file. Supporters say shifting the fight into civil court could bite harder than the state’s current licensing rules, while critics warn the plan is just asking for another round of constitutional brawls. The bill had its first public airing before the Senate Judiciary Committee today in Sacramento.
What the Supreme Court actually said
In Chiles v. Salazar, the high court concluded that Colorado’s law, as it applied to one counselor’s talk therapy, likely regulated speech based on viewpoint and sent the case back for tougher scrutiny, according to SCOTUSblog. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s 8-1 opinion stressed that state licensing power has limits when officials use it to control what a clinician may say. Legal observers say that framing could put similar laws around the country under pressure. Within days, states with bans modeled on California’s were reportedly scrambling to reassess their laws, with national reaction covered by AP News and others.
SB 934: A malpractice-focused backup
Sen. Wiener’s SB 934 would move the main enforcement tool away from professional licensing boards and into civil court. The proposal clarifies that people subjected to so-called sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts can bring malpractice claims and allows expert witnesses to explain the scientific consensus on the harms those practices can cause. Wiener’s office has laid out the bill’s key points, including a provision that lets someone who underwent conversion therapy as a minor file suit any time before turning 40, in a March 20 press release and in the bill text. Leginfo describes how SB 934 would stretch filing timelines and spell out how causation can be shown in malpractice suits.
How SB 934 differs from California’s current law
California’s original conversion-therapy ban, SB 1172, was enacted in 2012 and treats certain sexual orientation change efforts as professional misconduct that can trigger discipline by licensing boards. It relies on regulatory sanctions, not private lawsuits. The statute and its legislative history describe those practices as unprofessional conduct to be handled through the state’s licensing system, as reflected on Leginfo. Supporters told the San Francisco Chronicle that SB 934 would be toothier than discipline alone, since the threat of civil damages offers a direct route to compensation and a potential deterrent.
The evidence supporters point to
Backers of SB 934 lean heavily on research and policy statements from major medical organizations that describe conversion practices as ineffective and potentially harmful. A 2020 analysis in the American Journal of Public Health found substantially higher odds of suicide attempts among sexual-minority adults who reported exposure to sexual-orientation change efforts. A 2019 study in JAMA Psychiatry similarly linked recalled exposure to gender-identity conversion efforts with increased odds of lifetime suicide attempts among transgender adults. The American Journal of Public Health and JAMA Psychiatry articles summarize those findings and are frequently cited by advocates who want stronger remedies.
Legal questions and reactions
Advocates for LGBTQ survivors say SB 934 is a pragmatic way to keep some accountability intact, even if courts trim back or strike down speech-based regulations. They note that civil malpractice claims were explicitly outside the Supreme Court’s free-speech analysis in Chiles. The National Center for Lesbian Rights, a key player in drafting California’s original ban, welcomed the shift and framed SB 934 as a way to preserve meaningful remedies, according to the group’s statement. Critics, including some conservative legal groups, argue that SB 934 would still invite lawsuits of its own and that the court’s new standard leaves nearly any state approach vulnerable to First Amendment challenges, a concern reflected in national coverage of the ruling. National Center for Lesbian Rights and AP News reported reactions from both supporters and opponents.
What happens next in Sacramento
SB 934 received its first public hearing today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it appeared as a special order on the panel’s agenda. From here, the bill faces committee votes, floor debates on policy and, if it makes it that far, negotiations between the two chambers before any governor’s signature. Supporters insist the measure was drafted with the Supreme Court’s latest guidance firmly in mind, while legal scholars warn that litigation is still a strong possibility if SB 934 becomes law. For more on the hearing and schedule, see the Senate Judiciary Committee; the San Francisco Chronicle has also reported on the hearing and the road ahead.
