The Supreme Court has sided with a religious counselor challenging Colorado’s prohibition on “conversion therapy” targeting gay and transgender minors. This ruling represents a significant legal setback for LGBTQ+ advocacy groups and will impact similar legislation across nearly half the country.

The decision, issued by an 8-1 majority, does not immediately overturn the Colorado law, which remains active for now. Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative member of the court, authored the majority opinion.

Dissent and State Regulatory Power

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a rare dissent from the bench, warning that the ruling “opens a dangerous can of worms.” She argued that the decision erodes the authority of states to regulate medical care within their jurisdictions.

Justice Jackson emphasized that therapists function more as healthcare professionals than mere speakers, suggesting governments should have broader latitude to regulate their practices. She cautioned that the ruling might allow licensed professionals to provide substandard care under the guise of free speech.

First Amendment Interpretation

Justice Gorsuch countered Jackson’s dissent by asserting the court needed to afford greater deference to the First Amendment rights of counselors. He argued that the state’s attempt to regulate speech required rigorous judicial review.

Gorsuch wrote, “The Constitution does not protect the right of some to speak freely; it protects the right of all. It safeguards not only popular ideas; it secures, even and especially, the right to voice dissenting views.”

Concurrence on Content-Based Regulation

Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joined the majority but wrote a concurring opinion stressing the narrowness of the ruling. Justice Kagan clarified that the issue lay in Colorado’s law being “content-based” because it specifically targeted anti-trans therapy.

Kagan posited that a viewpoint-neutral law, such as one banning affirming therapy, would present a “different and more difficult question.” She concluded that Colorado’s statute regulated based on viewpoint, necessitating the court’s action.

Impact on Transgender Visibility Day

The ruling arrived on Tuesday, which is observed annually as Transgender Day of Visibility. This day celebrates achievements in trans rights advocacy while highlighting ongoing challenges faced by transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals.

This observance gains added weight as GOP-led states continue enacting legislation targeting the transgender community. President Donald Trump, upon returning to office last year, moved to reverse federal gains made by transgender Americans.

Advocacy Group Reactions

Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, issued a statement emphasizing unity against divisive political efforts. “We believe in fairness. We believe in dignity. And we believe in treating people equally under the law,” Robinson stated.

The Trevor Project, an organization focused on LGBTQ youth suicide prevention, criticized the decision as a “tragic step backward.” CEO Jaymes Black noted that conversion efforts, regardless of terminology, cause proven psychological harm, citing that affected youth are more than twice as likely to attempt suicide.

The Counselor's Challenge

Kaley Chiles, the Colorado licensed counselor who brought the challenge, argued on First Amendment grounds. Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, Chiles stated she only engages in “faith-informed counseling” when clients seek it out, disavowing extreme practices like shock therapy.