The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ minors, concluding that the statute implicates the First Amendment in a way that requires further legal review. In a case brought by a Christian counselor who argued the state law restricts protected speech, the court voted 8-1 in favor of striking down the ban at the level the lower courts had applied, before sending it back for additional analysis.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said the Colorado law violates the Constitution by censoring speech based on viewpoint. He wrote that the First Amendment “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country,” language reflecting the majority’s view that the statute targets how therapists talk, not just what treatment they provide. Gorsuch’s opinion drew support from liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
The court’s decision also returned the question to a lower court rather than ending the case immediately. The justices agreed that the law raises free speech concerns and sent it back to determine whether it satisfies a legal standard “that few laws pass,” a formulation used by the court in connection with strict scrutiny review of laws that burden speech.
In her separate discussion, Kagan wrote that the constitutional issue is straightforward because the state suppressed one side of a debate while aiding the other. Justice Kagan’s reasoning followed the majority’s framing that Colorado’s law does not treat all speech restrictions the same, but instead restricts counseling aimed at affirmation of sexual orientation or gender identity in a manner the justices viewed as viewpoint-based.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented on the court’s reasoning. She argued that states should retain authority to regulate health care, even if that regulation results in incidental restrictions on speech, and she warned that the majority approach could hamper states’ ability to govern medical services. Jackson wrote that the decision “opens a dangerous can of worms” that “threatens to impair states’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect.”
The case centered on counselor Kaley Chiles, who said Colorado wrongly bars her from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy to children. Chiles, with support from President Donald Trump’s Republican administration, argued that the state’s restrictions prevent her from helping families even when parents seek guidance grounded in religion. Her attorneys argued that the ban makes it difficult for parents to locate therapists willing to discuss gender identity with kids unless the counseling affirms transition.
Chiles said in a statement that she looks forward to helping families “when they choose the goal of growing comfortable with their bodies.” She also said, “Counselors walking alongside these young people shouldn’t be limited to promoting state-approved goals like gender transition, which often leads to harmful drugs and surgeries,” according to the reporting. The lawsuit and the briefs framed the disagreement as one between state-regulated restrictions and what Chiles and her supporters describe as voluntary faith-based counseling.
Colorado defended the ban by arguing it did not prohibit wide-ranging discussions about gender identity and sexual orientation. The state said its law exempts religious ministries and focuses on barring therapy used to try to “convert” LGBTQ people to heterosexuality or to traditional gender expectations—an approach it said has been scientifically discredited and linked to serious harm. Colorado further argued that the ban does not violate the First Amendment because therapy is a form of health care that states have responsibility to regulate.
Advocates for LGBTQ people condemned the ruling and continued to oppose “conversion therapy.” Polly Crozier, director of family policy at GLAD Law, said in a statement that the decision does not change the science and does not change the fact that “conversion therapists who harm patients will still face legal consequences.” She also said “This is a dangerous practice that has been condemned by every major medical association in the country.”
The court’s action came after lower-court decisions that differed across jurisdictions. The justices agreed to hear the case after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld Colorado’s law, while another appeals court, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, had struck down similar bans in Florida. The reporting also said Colorado’s 2019 law carries potential fines and license suspension, though no one had been sanctioned under it, and that the ruling is expected to make similar laws in other states harder to enforce.
Twenty-three states have laws barring health care providers from offering “conversion therapy” for minors, and another four have some restrictions, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an advocacy group that tracks policies affecting LGBTQ people. The Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday added another chapter to a series of recent cases in which the court has sided with claims involving religious discrimination and has taken a skeptical view of LGBTQ rights.