Topline
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Colorado’s ban on LGBTQ conversion therapy unlawfully regulated the speech of a therapist who wanted to counsel patients against being transgender, marking the court’s latest major decision against LGBTQ advocates—though the ruling still allows for bans on physical conversion therapy procedures.
Demonstrators in favor of LGBT rights rally outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on October 8, 2019.
AFP via Getty Images
Key Facts
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Chiles v. Salazar, a case on whether Colorado’s conversion therapy ban—referring to practices that aim to influence a patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity—unlawfully regulated speech.
The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor who “believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex,” and argued Colorado’s law was discriminatory by preventing her from counseling people through talk therapy about their sexual orientation and gender identity, while allowing counseling that promotes “acceptance” around gender identity and transitioning.
Justices ruled Colorado’s law “suppress[es] speech based on viewpoint” and “seeks to silence a viewpoint” Chiles “wishes to express,” disagreeing with lower courts that found the state was justified in barring Chiles from counseling people against being transgender.
The court specifically ruled against Colorado’s law as it applies to Chiles’ case and talk therapy, with Justice Neil Gorsuch noting for the court the case did not challenge Colorado’s ability to restrict “physical interventions” for conversion therapy, like electroconvulsive treatments.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only justice to side with Colorado, arguing in her dissent it’s permissible to regulate speech “when the speakers are medical professionals and their treatment-related speech is being restricted” in line with a state’s “regulation of the provision of medical care.”
Crucial Quote
“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. … But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country,” Gorsuch wrote in the court’s opinion for the case. “However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”
Chief Critic
Jackson argued in her dissent that blocking Colorado from regulating speech “uttered for purposes of providing medical treatment … opens a dangerous can of worms.” The court’s ruling “threatens to impair States’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect. It extends the Constitution into uncharted territory in an utterly irrational fashion. And it ultimately risks grave harm to Americans’ health and wellbeing,” Jackson argued.
Why Did Liberal Justices Rule Against Colorado?
While Jackson dissented, liberal-leaning Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor agreed with the court’s majority and sided against Colorado. In a concurring opinion that Sotomayor joined, Kagan argued Colorado’s law is unlawful “because it regulates speech based on viewpoint,” but she may have ruled differently if the law was “viewpoint-neutral” and didn’t specifically target speech counseling against being LGBTQ. “Because the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward,” Kagan argued.
Which Other States Could The Court’s Ruling Impact?
Colorado is one of 23 states plus Washington D.C. that have some form of law prohibiting conversion therapy for minors, along with California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
Big Number
5%. That’s the share of LGBTQ youth who have been subjected to conversion therapy, according to a 2024 survey conducted by The Trevor Project among more than 50,000 Americans ages 13-24, while another 8% were threatened with it. That 5% share is down from 10% who said in 2020 they were subjected to conversion therapy, suggesting the practice has declined as states have banned it.
Key Background
The Supreme Court’s ruling Tuesday marks the latest in a series of major decisions the conservative-leaning court has issued concerning LGBTQ rights, such as a ruling last term to uphold bans on gender-affirming care for minors. The courts’ rulings on LGBTQ rights have typically concerned the First Amendment and alleged infringements on the rights of anti-LGBTQ parties, with justices ruling in 2023 in favor of a web designer who refused to create websites for same-sex marriage, and ruling in June in favor of parents being able to object to LGBTQ books in schools. The court also upheld the ability of religious adoption and foster care agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples in 2021. Chiles v. Salazar is one of several high-profile cases on LGBTQ rights on the court’s docket this term, as justices are also deliberating on whether to allow bans on transgender women in school sports.
Further Reading
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2026/03/31/supreme-court-rules-against-ban-on-lgbtq-conversion-therapy/
