Supreme Court strikes down Colorado conversion therapy ban in 8-1 ruling

The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a sweeping decision with major implications for free speech and healthcare regulation, striking down a Colorado law that banned so-called “conversion therapy” for minors. In an 8–1 ruling, the Court held that the law violated the First Amendment rights of licensed counselors by restricting what they could say to their clients.

At the center of the case was a 2019 Colorado statute prohibiting “any practice or treatment” aimed at changing a minor’s “gender expressions” or reducing same-sex attraction. Although the law had not been enforced since its passage, it carried penalties of up to $5,000 per violation and potential suspension or revocation of a counselor’s license. Religious ministry providers were exempt.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized that the Constitution does not permit the government to favor certain viewpoints over others, even in the context of professional counseling. “Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety,” he wrote. “But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

The Court found that the law effectively allowed counselors to affirm a client’s gender identity or sexual orientation but barred them from assisting clients who sought to change or reduce those feelings. This, the majority concluded, amounted to viewpoint discrimination—a violation of core free speech protections.

The decision also rejected the argument that speech within professional settings should receive less constitutional protection. “The Constitution does not protect the right of some to speak freely; it protects the right of all,” the Court stated. “It safeguards not only popular ideas; it secures, even and especially, the right to voice dissenting views.” The majority further clarified that so-called “professional speech” is not a separate category subject to diminished First Amendment safeguards.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a sharp dissent, warning that the ruling could have far-reaching consequences for the regulation of healthcare practices. She argued that states have long held authority to set standards for licensed professionals in order to protect patients from harmful or ineffective treatments.

“In the worst-case scenario, our medical system unravels as various licensed healthcare professionals — talk therapists, psychiatrists, and presumably anyone else who claims to utilize speech when administering treatments to patients — start broadly wielding their new-found constitutional right to provide substandard medical care,” Jackson wrote.

She continued with a stark warning about the potential erosion of healthcare quality: “It is baffling that we could now be standing on the edge of a precipitous drop in the quality of healthcare services in America. But the Court sees fit to bring us one step closer to that fate today.”

The case originated from a challenge brought in 2022 by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and evangelical Christian. Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, Chiles argued that the law prevented her from working with minors who wished to live in accordance with their religious beliefs. She maintained that her practice did not aim to “cure” clients but to help them achieve their personal goals, which could include reducing unwanted attractions.

Colorado officials, including Attorney General Phil Weiser, defended the law as a necessary measure to protect minors from potentially harmful practices. The state argued that counseling is a form of professional conduct subject to regulation, not merely private speech.

Lower courts initially sided with Colorado, with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the law was a permissible regulation of professional conduct that only incidentally involved speech. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, elevating the speech component as central to the issue.

The ruling is expected to have nationwide implications, as more than 20 states have enacted similar bans on conversion therapy for minors. Legal experts anticipate a wave of challenges to those laws in light of the Court’s decision.