The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on Tuesday favoring a Colorado counselor challenging the state's prohibition on conversion therapy for minors. The high court determined that lower courts failed to apply the necessary level of First Amendment scrutiny when evaluating the law's constitutionality.

High Court Mandates Stricter Scrutiny for Colorado Law

The 8-1 decision found that Colorado's law, as applied to the talk therapy provided by counselor Kaley Chiles, regulates speech based on viewpoint. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole member of the Court to dissent from the majority opinion.

This ruling overturns a previous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. That appeals court had previously concluded the law regulated professional conduct rather than incidentally burdening speech.

A Narrow Victory That Avoids Overturning the Ban

It is important to note that this Supreme Court decision is narrow; it does not completely invalidate Colorado's conversion therapy ban. Instead, it mandates that lower courts apply the most stringent level of scrutiny when assessing the law's constitutionality.

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, stating that the Colorado law does more than just prohibit physical interventions. He argued that in cases such as this, the law censors speech based on viewpoint.

Justice Gorsuch wrote, "Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country."

Gorsuch further specified that the Colorado statute goes beyond regulating speech content; it dictates "what views she may and may not express."

Dissenting Viewpoint on State Regulatory Power

Justice Jackson, in her dissent read from the bench, warned against the implications of the majority's decision. She argued that failing to uphold Colorado's regulation of medical treatment "opens a dangerous can of worms."

Jackson contended that the ruling threatens the ability of states to regulate medical care in any capacity. She concluded that the decision extends the Constitution into "uncharted territory in an utterly irrational fashion," potentially risking "grave harm to Americans' health and wellbeing."

Reactions to the Supreme Court's Ruling

Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, who represented Chiles, praised the outcome. He stated that the ruling is a "significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children."

Campbell added that states should not be allowed to "silence voluntary conversations that help young people seeking to grow comfortable with their bodies." Kaley Chiles herself called the decision a "victory for counselors and, more importantly, kids and families everywhere."

Conversely, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser expressed disagreement with the ruling. He stated the state is reviewing the decision to understand its "full impact on Colorado law and on our responsibility to protect consumers and patients."

Weiser characterized the decision as a setback for Colorado's efforts to shield children and families from "harmful and discredited mental health practices." He believes it limits the authority states traditionally hold to safeguard patients from substandard care.

Background on Colorado's Conversion Therapy Ban

Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law, enacted in 2019, is one of over 20 state restrictions on conversion therapy. The law prohibits licensed mental health professionals from engaging in treatments attempting to alter an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity, including talk therapy.

Violations of this law can result in fines up to $5,000, license suspension, or license revocation. Major medical organizations have previously cautioned that these practices aimed at changing identity or orientation are potentially harmful and lack credible scientific backing.

Counselor Chiles' Legal Challenge

Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor offering "faith-informed" counseling when requested, sued state officials after the law took effect. She argued the ban violates her free-speech rights by censoring discussions based on viewpoint and content.

Chiles seeks to counsel minors wishing to "reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with physical bodies." Her lawyers noted the law permits treatment supporting gender transition but bars efforts to align identity with biological sex at birth.

Colorado officials maintained that the law regulates professional conduct and medical treatments overseen by state licensing boards. Lower courts had previously agreed, upholding the law by classifying it as professional conduct regulation rather than speech regulation.