The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling on Tuesday, striking down a Colorado law that prohibited the practice known as “conversion therapy” targeting LGBTQ+ youth. This action targets one of approximately two dozen state-level bans currently in place across the nation.

First Amendment Concerns Drive High Court Decision

An overwhelming 8-1 majority of the justices sided with a Christian counselor challenging the legislation. The core of their decision rests on the belief that the Colorado law raises serious free speech concerns under the First Amendment.

The case was sent back to a lower court for further review to determine if the law meets a high legal standard that few statutes successfully pass. The ruling is anticipated to have broad implications, potentially rendering similar bans in other states unenforceable.

The Counselor's Religious Freedom Argument

Counselor Kaley Chiles, supported by the former administration of President Donald Trump, argued that the ban infringed upon her ability to offer voluntary, faith-based therapy to minors.

Chiles' legal team contended that her approach differs significantly from historical, discredited practices like shock therapy associated with older forms of “conversion therapy.” They asserted that the ban effectively prevents parents from finding therapists willing to discuss gender identity unless the counseling affirms transition.

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

Colorado Defends Public Health Regulation

The State of Colorado maintained that its 2019 law does not impede broad conversations regarding sexual orientation or gender identity, noting that it includes exemptions for religious ministries.

State officials argued the measure specifically targets therapy intended to “convert” LGBTQ individuals to heterosexuality or traditional gender roles—a practice widely discredited by science and linked to severe harm.

Colorado further contended that the First Amendment does not fully shield therapy, asserting that counseling constitutes a form of healthcare that the state has a duty to regulate. The law, which carries penalties including fines and license suspension, has not resulted in any sanctions since its enactment.