Listen to the article
The Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ minors on Tuesday, siding with a Christian counselor who challenged the law on First Amendment grounds. In an 8-1 decision, the justices determined that the 2019 law raises substantial free speech concerns and returned the case to lower courts for further review under strict scrutiny—a demanding legal standard that few regulations survive.
This ruling represents the latest in a series of decisions where the Court has favored religious liberty claims while taking a more restrictive stance on LGBTQ+ protections. The case centered around counselor Kaley Chiles, who argued the Colorado law unconstitutionally prevented her from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy for children struggling with sexual orientation or gender identity issues.
Chiles, represented by the conservative legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), maintained that her therapeutic approach differs significantly from historical conversion therapy practices that included extreme measures like electric shock treatment. Her legal team contended that Colorado’s ban effectively makes it difficult for parents to find therapists willing to discuss gender identity with children unless the counseling affirms gender transition.
Colorado officials defended their law, arguing it permits wide-ranging discussions about gender identity and sexual orientation while exempting religious ministries. The state maintained that the measure specifically prohibits using therapy to attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity—practices that major medical and mental health organizations have discredited as ineffective and potentially harmful.
State attorneys further argued that the law doesn’t violate the First Amendment because therapy constitutes a form of healthcare that falls within the state’s regulatory authority, not purely protected speech.
Despite being in effect since 2019, no therapists have been sanctioned under the Colorado law, which carries penalties including fines and license suspension for violations. However, the Supreme Court’s decision will likely have far-reaching implications beyond Colorado, potentially undermining similar conversion therapy bans enacted in approximately two dozen other states.
The ruling marks another victory for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has established a successful track record at the Supreme Court in recent years. The organization previously represented Colorado website designer Lorie Smith, who won a Supreme Court case last year challenging the state’s anti-discrimination law because she didn’t want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples.
Legal experts note this decision continues the Court’s recent pattern of expanding religious liberty protections while narrowing laws designed to protect LGBTQ+ individuals from discrimination. The 8-1 vote indicates broad consensus among the justices on the free speech concerns raised, though the ultimate fate of conversion therapy bans remains uncertain as lower courts must now apply the strict scrutiny standard.
Medical and mental health organizations, including the American Psychological Association and American Medical Association, have consistently condemned conversion therapy practices. These groups cite research showing such interventions can lead to depression, anxiety, self-harm, and increased suicide risk among LGBTQ+ youth.
The case now returns to lower courts where Colorado must demonstrate that its law serves a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest—a difficult burden that may require legislators to modify the law’s language to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations expressed dismay at the ruling, warning it could endanger vulnerable youth, while religious liberty advocates celebrated the decision as a protection for faith-based counseling approaches and parental rights in guiding their children’s upbringing.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
As a parent, I’m troubled by the idea of counselors promoting therapies that aim to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Shouldn’t the focus be on supporting and affirming young people, not trying to ‘convert’ them?
I understand your concern. This is a delicate balance between parental rights, religious freedom, and protecting minors. The courts will have to sort through these complex issues carefully.
This is a complex and sensitive issue. While I respect religious liberty, I’m concerned that this ruling may undermine important protections for LGBTQ+ youth. Conversion therapy can be deeply harmful, and I hope the lower courts will carefully scrutinize this law to ensure it strikes the right balance.
You raise a fair point. The courts will need to carefully weigh the competing interests at stake here. It’s crucial that any regulations uphold free speech rights while also safeguarding vulnerable young people.
This ruling seems to set a precedent that could undermine state efforts to ban harmful conversion therapy practices. I worry about the potential mental health impacts on LGBTQ+ youth. Hopefully the lower courts will find a way to uphold appropriate safeguards.
This is a concerning development. Conversion therapy has been widely discredited as ineffective and harmful. I hope the lower courts will uphold strong protections for LGBTQ+ youth, even if it means imposing some limits on counselors’ speech.
As someone who works in mental health, I’m deeply troubled by this ruling. Conversion therapy can have devastating psychological impacts, especially on vulnerable young people. I hope the courts will prioritize evidence-based care and the wellbeing of LGBTQ+ youth.
While I respect the Court’s reasoning on free speech grounds, I’m not convinced this type of therapy is truly ‘voluntary’ for minors. Children are vulnerable and impressionable – we should be very cautious about allowing practices that could traumatize them.
That’s a fair point. The courts will need to closely examine the realities of how this therapy is actually implemented and whether minors are truly giving informed consent.