Supreme Court Strikes Down Colorado Conversion Therapy Ban, Citing Free Speech Protections

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled 8-1 that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors violates the First Amendment’s free speech protections. The decision came in a case brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor who challenged the state law prohibiting licensed mental health professionals from engaging in any practice, including talk therapy, aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The court found that Colorado’s law regulates speech based on viewpoint, rather than professional conduct, and therefore requires more rigorous constitutional scrutiny.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, emphasized that the law “does not just ban physical interventions” but also censors speech based on viewpoint. He stated, “The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.” The ruling reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which had upheld the law on the grounds that it regulated professional conduct and only incidentally burdened speech. The Supreme Court’s ruling sends the case back to lower courts for further review under this heightened standard.

Colorado enacted its Minor Conversion Therapy Law in 2019, joining over 20 states that have restricted conversion therapy practices for minors. The law imposes fines up to $5,000 and potential suspension or revocation of professional licenses for violators. Conversion therapy, often supported by some religious conservatives, seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, a practice widely discredited by major medical organizations such as the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association. These groups warn that conversion therapy can be harmful and increase risks of suicide among LGBTQ youth.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter, expressing concern that the ruling could undermine states’ ability to regulate medical professionals and protect patients. She argued that “bedrock First Amendment principles have far less salience when the speakers are medical professionals” and warned that the decision could lead to “unprofessional and unsafe medical care.” The ruling highlights the ongoing tension between free speech and religious expression rights and LGBTQ protections. While the Supreme Court has historically supported LGBTQ rights in landmark rulings such as the legalization of same-sex marriage and workplace discrimination protections, it has also recently sided with religious conservatives in cases involving free speech and religious objections to LGBTQ-related policies.