US Supreme Court Rules 8-1 Against Colorado's LGBTQ+ Conversion Therapy Ban

The United States Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Tuesday that Colorado's 2019 ban on conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ minors violates the First Amendment's free speech protections, siding with Christian licensed mental health counselor Kaley Chiles in a case that drew national attention. The majority opinion, written by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, held that Colorado's law censors speech based on viewpoint when applied to talk therapy. The court reversed a lower court ruling that had upheld the law and sent the case back to lower courts for further review under a stricter First Amendment standard. The Trump administration had supported Chiles in her legal challenge. The ruling is widely regarded as a setback for LGBTQ+ rights advocates.

Colorado enacted its conversion therapy ban in 2019, when Democratic Governor Jared Polis — the first openly gay man elected as a U.S. state governor — signed the legislation into law. The law prohibited licensed mental healthcare providers from seeking to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of patients under 18, with violators facing fines of up to $5,000 and potential suspension or loss of their professional license. More than 20 U.S. states and much of Europe, including Germany, have enacted similar bans. The United Nations has called for a global ban on conversion therapy, describing the practices as discriminatory, humiliating, and a violation of bodily integrity. Germany banned conversion therapy in 2020.

Gorsuch says law amounts to government-imposed censorship Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the eight-justice majority, framed the Colorado statute as an unconstitutional restriction on professional speech. The law, he wrote, does not merely ban physical interventions but goes further by dictating which views a counselor may or may not express.

„Colorado's law addressing conversion therapy does not just ban physical interventions. In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint.” — Neil Gorsuch via Reuters

Gorsuch added that the First Amendment serves as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech. Notably, two liberal justices — Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — joined the conservative majority in the ruling, making the dissent a lone voice rather than a liberal bloc. The court did leave open the possibility that Colorado's law could still apply to so-called aversive physical interventions, meaning the ruling does not strike down the statute in its entirety. The case was remanded to lower courts to apply a more rigorous First Amendment standard.

Jackson warns ruling opens a dangerous can of worms Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter, issuing a pointed warning about the ruling's broader implications for states' authority to regulate medical practices. Jackson argued that states have long-recognized power to restrict dangerous therapies offered by licensed professionals, and that the majority's reasoning would undermine that authority.

„The Constitution does not pose a barrier to reasonable regulation of harmful medical treatments just because substandard care comes via speech instead of scalpel.” — Ketanji Brown Jackson via RTE.ie

Jackson accused her colleagues of opening "a dangerous can of worms" and warned the decision would prove unsustainable over time. She argued that Colorado's choice to restrict what it deemed a dangerous therapy was not unconstitutional, and that the majority misinterpreted existing legal precedents. Colorado had argued throughout the case that its law regulated professional conduct, not constitutionally protected individual expression. The state also noted in court filings that a ruling in Chiles's favor would undermine states' ability to protect patients from substandard care.

Chiles's lawyers celebrate, LGBTQ+ groups warn of harm to minors Kaley Chiles, a practicing Christian, brought the lawsuit arguing that her talk therapy — rooted in her belief that people flourish when living in accordance with what she described as God's design — was protected speech under the First Amendment. She was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative religious rights group that has previously won landmark Supreme Court cases on behalf of a baker and a wedding website designer who declined to serve same-sex couples on religious grounds.

„A significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children.” — James Campbell via Deutsche Welle

Medical organizations including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have opposed conversion therapy, citing research linking it to depression, increased risk of suicide attempts, and other harms, particularly among transgender youth. The Trevor Project, an organization focused on suicide prevention among LGBTQ+ youth, described the ruling as a "tragic step back," according to reporting by eldiario.es. Colorado's law had also permitted therapy providing support for gender transition and therapies centered on "acceptance, support, and understanding" for identity exploration — provisions that remain unaffected by the ruling. The case now returns to lower courts, where the Colorado law's application to non-speech physical interventions remains legally intact.

8-1 (vote) — Supreme Court majority against Colorado conversion therapy ban

Majority (against Colorado ban): 8, Dissent (upholding Colorado ban): 1