Supreme Court Sides With Counselor in Challenge to Colorado Conversion Therapy Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court on March 31 ruled that a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy” for minors triggers First Amendment concerns, siding with a licensed counselor who challenged the restriction as a limit on speech. In an 8-1 decision, the justices said the law targets speech based on viewpoint and sent the case back to a lower court to determine whether it can meet a demanding constitutional standard.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the law “censors speech based on viewpoint,” adding that the Constitution protects against government efforts to favor one perspective over another. The opinion drew support from Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who agreed that the state cannot restrict one side of a debate while allowing the other.

The case centers on Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor who challenged Colorado’s 2019 law barring licensed therapists from engaging in practices aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. She argued the restriction prevents her from offering voluntary, faith-based counseling consistent with her clients’ stated goals, while allowing therapists to provide care that affirms gender transition.

Colorado officials defended the law as a regulation of professional conduct, not speech. The state said the measure allows discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity but prohibits efforts to steer minors toward heterosexuality or traditional gender roles. Officials also argued that the restriction addresses practices that medical groups have found harmful.

The dispute turns on how the Constitution applies to speech within licensed professions. The First Amendment generally bars the government from restricting speech based on content or viewpoint. When a law does so, courts apply a test known as strict scrutiny. Under that standard, the government must show the law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly written to achieve that goal, a threshold few laws meet. States can regulate licensed professionals to protect public health, but when a rule controls what a therapist can say during a session, courts may treat it as a speech restriction rather than routine oversight.

In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the decision could limit states’ authority to oversee medical care. She said treating professional guidance as protected speech risks weakening rules designed to protect patients.

Supporters of the law say conversion therapy has been widely discredited and linked to mental health risks, particularly for minors. Advocates for LGBTQ+ people criticized the ruling, with Polly Crozier of GLAD Law stating that the decision does not change the scientific consensus or eliminate potential consequences for harmful conduct.

Chiles, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom and supported by the administration of Donald Trump, said the law restricts counselors from exploring certain viewpoints unless they align with state-approved outcomes. She has said her approach differs from older practices associated with conversion therapy and focuses on talk-based counseling.

Federal appeals courts have split on similar laws. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld Colorado’s measure, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit struck down comparable restrictions in Florida. More than 20 states have enacted laws limiting or banning conversion therapy for minors, according to policy tracking groups.

The case now returns to the lower courts for further review under the standard outlined by the Supreme Court.