Supreme Court Rejects Colorado Law Banning ‘Conversion Therapy’ for LGBTQ Children

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a Christian therapist, striking down a Colorado law that prohibits mental health professionals from attempting to change the gender or identity of LGBTQ children.

The court’s decision affects more than 20 other states that have similar laws banning so-called conversion therapy, which critics say is ineffective and could be harmful to young people.

In its decision, the court said the law, as applied to speech therapy, impermissibly interferes with free speech.

“Colorado may view its policy as essential to public health and safety,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for himself and seven other justices from across the board. “But the First Amendment is a protection against any attempt to impose belief on thought or speech in this country.”

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, reading a lengthy summary of his dissent from the bench.

Justice Jackson warned of broader implications for health care that he said would be “disastrous” if states were unable to regulate other types of speech by licensed professionals.

“This decision could make talk-only therapies and other therapies that involve the doctor’s speech out of control,” he wrote, criticizing his eight colleagues for making “this important decision without adequately addressing the long-term and potentially catastrophic consequences.”

The Colorado law, adopted in 2019, prohibits “any practice or treatment” that attempts to change a minor’s “sex expression” or to remove or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward people of the same sex.

State officials have never enforced the measure, which includes fines of up to $5,000 for each violation and possible suspension or revocation of a counselor’s license. The law includes religious exemptions for those who “perform religious service.”

Kaley Chiles, an evangelical Christian, sued the state over the law in 2022, saying it prevents her from working with young patients who want to live a life “consistent with their faith.”

In his court papers, Mrs. Chiles said he didn’t want to “cure” same-sex clients or “change” their sexuality, but rather to help patients with their stated goals, which sometimes include “wanting to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attraction.”

Mrs. Chiles’ legal team told the court that the law should be reviewed in a way that requires the state to show that its law advances a compelling state interest and is designed to do so. They say that if the law was below that high standard, which is known as strict scrutiny, the courts would find that it violates the Constitution. The therapist’s position has been backed in court by the Trump administration.

Colorado’s Democratic Attorney General, Phil Weiser, defended the law, saying states have long regulated medical practices, including talk therapy, to protect patients from inappropriate care. He warned that the Supreme Court’s decision against Colorado would limit states’ ability to regulate other professions and make it harder to sue all kinds of professionals, including doctors and lawyers, for giving bad advice.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions in favor of religious people, especially orthodox Christians. In 2023, the court sided with a Colorado web designer who argued that the First Amendment allowed him to refuse to design same-sex wedding websites. In 2022, a court ruled that a high school football coach has a constitutional right to pray at the 50-yard line after his team’s games.

The Colorado therapist’s case came months after a conservative court majority upheld a Tennessee law that banned certain treatments for transgender youth that the state deemed unsafe. In January, justices also heard challenges to state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that bar transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports. This summer it is expected that a decision will be issued in this case.

Generally, the First Amendment prevents the government from restricting speech because it does not like the content or message. But the Supreme Court has said that certain restrictions aimed at regulating human behavior are permissible even if they burden free speech.

In its opinion on Tuesday, the court rejected Colorado’s claim that the law represented a legalization of traditional medicine and prohibited Mrs. Chiles.

“Instead, federal law directly restricts the content of his speech and allows him to express certain views but not others,” Justice Gorsuch wrote.

The majority agreed that the question of “‘the best way to help children’ struggling with issues of gender identity or gender preference is currently ‘a heated public debate.'” But it concluded that Colorado’s law clearly bars speech that violates the First Amendment.

“Every American has an inalienable right to free thought and speech, and to believe in the free marketplace of ideas as the best way to discover the truth,” the opinion said. “However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses opinion-based speech represents a ‘vicious’ attack on both of those obligations.”

The issue had divided the lower courts. A Florida appeals court found a set of uniform local laws restricting medical treatment in the state were unconstitutional. A separate panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit sided with Colorado, finding that talk therapy provided by a mental health professional is a treatment that cannot be regulated as part of the state’s licensing process.