Supreme Court Guts Conversion Therapy Ban

Judges gavel on desk with person writing.

The Supreme Court just handed religious counselors a massive First Amendment victory by gutting Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors—but will this unleash harmful practices or protect free speech?

Story Snapshot

8-1 ruling in Chiles v. Salazar reverses Colorado’s 2019 ban on talk therapy for minors seeking to reduce same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria.
Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion deems the law viewpoint discrimination, remanding for strict scrutiny.
Narrow focus on licensed counselors’ speech rights; exempts religious ministers and physical interventions.
Threatens similar bans in 23 states and D.C., empowering Alliance Defending Freedom challenges.
Justice Jackson dissents alone, defending regulation of professional conduct.

Colorado Enacts Controversial Ban in 2019

Colorado passed the Minor Conversion Therapy Law in 2019, prohibiting licensed mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to anyone under 18. The statute targets practices deemed scientifically discredited, linked to mental health risks for LGBTQ+ youth. It exempts unlicensed religious ministry practitioners, narrowing focus to regulated counselors. This law emerged amid post-2010s pushback against therapies rooted in outdated views from before the 1970s APA declassification of homosexuality as a disorder.

Kaley Chiles Challenges the Law

Kaley Chiles, a licensed Christian counselor, sued in 2022 after the law blocked her faith-informed talk therapy for minors distressed by same-sex attraction or gender identity misalignment. She argued it violated her First Amendment rights. The 10th Circuit upheld the ban in 2024 under rational basis review, classifying it as professional conduct regulation. Chiles petitioned the Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split on therapy speech protections.

Supreme Court Oral Arguments and Ruling

The Supreme Court heard arguments in October 2025. On March 31, 2026, it issued an 8-1 opinion in Chiles v. Salazar, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch. The majority held Colorado’s law regulates pure speech by banning non-affirming talk therapy while permitting affirming views, triggering strict scrutiny. It reversed the 10th Circuit and remanded without fully invalidating the ban. The ruling draws on precedents like NIFLA v. Becerra, rejecting deference to professional speech doctrines.

Stakeholders Drive the Battle

Alliance Defending Freedom represented Chiles, building on prior Colorado free speech wins like wedding cake and website cases. Colorado officials, including defendant Salazar, defended the ban to shield minors from harm. The Trump administration backed Chiles, stressing speech rights. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing licensed professionals’ conduct warrants lesser First Amendment protection, akin to other healthcare regulations.

Gorsuch Opinion Targets Viewpoint Censorship

Gorsuch wrote that the law censors speech based on viewpoint, shielding against orthodoxy in thought. It applies narrowly to talk therapy, not physical interventions. This framework binds lower courts, demanding states prove compelling interests and narrow tailoring to survive. Common sense aligns with Gorsuch: American values prioritize free expression, especially for faith-based views, over state-mandated therapeutic uniformity.

Impacts Ripple Nationwide

Short-term, the 10th Circuit reexamines Colorado’s law under strict scrutiny, with no immediate injunction. Long-term, it endangers bans in 23 states and D.C., bolstering religious counselors’ rights while alarming LGBTQ+ advocates over youth trauma risks. Mental health fields face tighter speech-conduct lines, polarizing debates on exploratory versus affirming therapy. ADF plans swift challenges elsewhere.