JURIST Staff

March 31, 2026 06:00:36 pm

The US Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors violates the First Amendment when applied to counselors who use only talk therapy, a landmark decision with sweeping implications for how states regulate speech by licensed health care professionals. The court voted 8-1 to reverse a lower court ruling that had […]READ MORE ▸

_____________________________________________

POLICY NEWS       Supreme Court rules against Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy   (c)       Supreme Court rules against Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy     Today, the Supreme Court ruled against Colorado’s law banning licensed mental health care providers from practicing conversion therapy on minors. Conversion therapy refers to treatments provided to a person for the purpose of changing their sexual orientation or gender identity. Williams Institute research estimates that 698,000 LGBT adults have been exposed to conversion therapy, including 350,000 who had been subjected to the treatments as adolescents.   Conversion therapy is a discredited and harmful practice. In an amicus brief filed with the Court in Chiles v. Salazar, Williams Institute scholars presented extensive evidence of the impacts of conversion therapy on LGBT people, demonstrating both its ineffectiveness at achieving its main purpose—making a person not LGBT—and the harms reported by those who have experienced the treatments. Major medical associations, including the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association, oppose the practice and consider it unethical.   The Court’s decision did not endorse conversion therapy or address whether the practice is harmful or ineffective. In fact, it gave almost no consideration to the potential for harm or Colorado’s interest in protecting its residents from those harms. Instead, the Court narrowly focused on whether the law infringed upon the free speech rights of the petitioner, Kaley Chiles. Specifically, the Court considered whether the law regulated conduct, which the state has more leeway to restrict, or speech, which receives greater protections under the First Amendment.   Eight justices joined the majority opinion that held that Colorado’s law regulates speech, rather than conduct. As a result, the Court held that the law should have been treated with more skepticism in the lower courts.   Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed with the majority and acknowledged the lasting psychological harm associated with conversion therapy. As she explained, “Ultimately, scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the anticipated harms from conversion therapy are twofold. First, conversion therapy stigmatizes the patient, telling them that their gender identity or sexual orientation is something to be fixed, rather than accepted. This rejection can lead to shame and guilt, which in turn can cause long-term emotional distress. Second, conversion therapy sets patients up to fail by giving them an unattainable goal.”   The case will now return to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it will be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.  While bans like Colorado’s may not survive today’s decision, the case does not signal that conversion therapy is safe or effective, for minors or adults. The case also does not foreclose other avenues for survivors to take legal action against providers when they have been harmed or defrauded by the practice. Courts in several states, including California and New Jersey, have indicated that conversion therapy is a fraudulent commercial practice, allowing legal claims against providers under state consumer protection laws. In addition, the case does not require insurers to cover conversion therapy for minors. Several states, including New York and Minnesota, prohibit Medicaid or private insurers from covering conversion therapy. Despite today’s decision, there remain pathways to challenging or curtailing the practice of conversion therapy in the future.   While the Court’s decision establishes that states cannot categorically ban therapists from using talk therapy to discourage a person’s identification as LGBT, it doesn’t undermine what the evidence shows. At the Williams Institute, we believe that this evidence will have its day in court.         Today, the Supreme Court ruled against Colorado’s law banning licensed mental health care providers from practicing conversion therapy on minors. Conversion therapy refers to treatments provided to a person for the purpose of changing their sexual orientation or gender identity. Williams Institute research estimates that 698,000 LGBT adults have been exposed to conversion therapy, including 350,000 who had been subjected to the treatments as adolescents.   Conversion therapy is a discredited and harmful practice. In an amicus brief filed with the Court in Chiles v. Salazar, Williams Institute scholars presented extensive evidence of the impacts of conversion therapy on LGBT people, demonstrating both its ineffectiveness at achieving its main purpose—making a person not LGBT—and the harms reported by those who have experienced the treatments. Major medical associations, including the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association, oppose the practice and consider it unethical.   The Court’s decision did not endorse conversion therapy or address whether the practice is harmful or ineffective. In fact, it gave almost no consideration to the potential for harm or Colorado’s interest in protecting its residents from those harms. Instead, the Court narrowly focused on whether the law infringed upon the free speech rights of the petitioner, Kaley Chiles. Specifically, the Court considered whether the law regulated conduct, which the state has more leeway to restrict, or speech, which receives greater protections under the First Amendment.   Eight justices joined the majority opinion that held that Colorado’s law regulates speech, rather than conduct. As a result, the Court held that the law should have been treated with more skepticism in the lower courts.   Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed with the majority and acknowledged the lasting psychological harm associated with conversion therapy. As she explained, “Ultimately, scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the anticipated harms from conversion therapy are twofold. First, conversion therapy stigmatizes the patient, telling them that their gender identity or sexual orientation is something to be fixed, rather than accepted. This rejection can lead to shame and guilt, which in turn can cause long-term emotional distress. Second, conversion therapy sets patients up to fail by giving them an unattainable goal.”   The case will now return to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it will be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.  While bans like Colorado’s may not survive today’s decision, the case does not signal that conversion therapy is safe or effective, for minors or adults. The case also does not foreclose other avenues for survivors to take legal action against providers when they have been harmed or defrauded by the practice. Courts in several states, including California and New Jersey, have indicated that conversion therapy is a fraudulent commercial practice, allowing legal claims against providers under state consumer protection laws. In addition, the case does not require insurers to cover conversion therapy for minors. Several states, including New York and Minnesota, prohibit Medicaid or private insurers from covering conversion therapy. Despite today’s decision, there remain pathways to challenging or curtailing the practice of conversion therapy in the future.   While the Court’s decision establishes that states cannot categorically ban therapists from using talk therapy to discourage a person’s identification as LGBT, it doesn’t undermine what the evidence shows. At the Williams Institute, we believe that this evidence will have its day in court.