The Supreme Court has weighed in on the controversial practice of “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ youth, striking down a ban enacted by the state of Colorado. This ruling affects Colorado, which is one of nearly two dozen states that have prohibited the discredited therapeutic approach.

High Court Sides with Counselor on First Amendment Grounds

On Tuesday, an 8-1 majority of the high court ruled in favor of a Christian counselor challenging the Colorado law. The majority determined that the state’s ban raises significant concerns regarding the First Amendment right to free speech.

The case was subsequently sent back to a lower court for further review to determine if the law meets a strict legal standard. The counselor, Kaley Chiles, was supported in her challenge by the former administration of President Donald Trump.

The Counselor's Argument vs. State Defense

Chiles argued that the law improperly restricts her ability to offer voluntary, faith-based counseling to minors. Her legal team contended that her current approach differs significantly from historical, harmful practices like shock therapy associated with older forms of “conversion therapy.”

Attorneys for Chiles further asserted that the ban effectively prevents parents from finding therapists willing to discuss gender identity with children unless the counseling affirms transition. This limitation, they argued, curtails parental choice and access to specific viewpoints.

Conversely, the State of Colorado maintained that its law permits extensive conversations regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, noting that religious ministries are exempt from the ban. Colorado argued the measure specifically targets therapy aimed at attempting to “convert” individuals to heterosexuality or traditional gender norms.

Legal Implications and Regulatory Context

The state emphasized that the banned practice is scientifically discredited and linked to severe negative outcomes for individuals. Colorado contended that the First Amendment does not shield therapy from regulation because it constitutes a form of healthcare, which the state has a duty to oversee.

The 2019 Colorado law includes potential penalties such as fines and license suspension, though no practitioners have reportedly faced sanctions under the statute yet. Legal experts anticipate that this Supreme Court decision will likely impact the enforceability of similar bans across other states.

Chiles was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization known for its frequent appearances before the Supreme Court in recent years.